Ferrell v. Leonard

76 So. 51, 200 Ala. 285, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 418
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided May 17, 1917·No. 6 Div. 582.·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

ANDERSON, C. J.

[1, 2] The final decree in this cause must be reversed, as it was based upon decrees pro confesso taken without notice after the appellants had regularly entered an appearance, some by demurrer, and all by a plea. Chancery Rules 46, 48; Vary v. Thompson, 168 Ala. 371, 52 South. 951. It has been suggested that this is a moot case as to some of these appellants, in that some of them have turned over certain books, funds, etc., to the receiver. Whether this be the case or not, it would not exclude the consideration of the appeal as to the other respondents, there being a severance in the assignments of error, or prevent a reversal, and the respondents who are no longer necessary parties can be discharged by the trial court.

The decree of the chancery court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

McClellan, 'sayre, and Gardner, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ferrell v. Leonard, 76 So. 51, 200 Ala. 285, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 418 (Ala. 1917).

76 So. 51 (Ferrell v. Leonard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Capps v. Norden
75 So. 2d 915 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1954)
Valenzuela v. Sellers
43 So. 2d 121 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1949)
Purifoy v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co.
117 So. 466 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1928)
Hamaker v. Whitfield
76 So. 52 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1917)