Lide v. Park

31 So. 360, 132 Ala. 222, 1902 Ala. LEXIS 16
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJanuary 14, 1902
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 31 So. 360 (Lide v. Park) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lide v. Park, 31 So. 360, 132 Ala. 222, 1902 Ala. LEXIS 16 (Ala. 1902).

Opinion

SHARPE, J.

— Authority for appealing from an interlocutory decree sustaining a demurrer 'to a bill in equity is found alone in section 427 of the Code. By that section time for taking an appeal in such case is limited to thirty days after the rendition of such decree, and no exception is made as to cases where time has been allowed for amending the bill. The appeal in this case having been taken after the lapse of thirty days from the decree sustaining the demurrer though within thirty days after expiration of the time allowed for "amendment was unauthorized and is therefore not within the jurisdiction of this court. Had complainant, when the demurrer was sustained elected to stand on that ruling and suffered the hill dismissed the decree of dismissal would have been appealable under the twelve months statute applicable to final decrees; but the provision contained in the decree on demurrer that “complainant has thirty days within which to amend said bill so as to give it equity or it will stand dismissed,” did not of its own force dismiss the bill or determine that suit or right in respect of its subject matter, and therefore is not a final decree. That order contains What is equivalent to a direction for a dismissal upon a contingency and in such case a subsequent order is requisite to finally effect the dismissal. See Ex parte McLendon, 33 Ala. 276; Reese v. Billing, 9 Ala. 263; Jones’ Admr. v. Craig, 127 U. S. 213; Phipps v. VanCott, (N. Y.) 4 Abb. Prac. 90; Railroad Co. v. Fosdick, 106 U. S. 69; 5 Ency. Pl. & Pr., 951, 952.

The motion to dismiss the appeal will be granted.

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

Related

Holt v. City of Birmingham
186 So. 549 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1939)
Smith v. City of Birmingham
153 So. 152 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1934)
Ex Parte Smith
153 So. 152 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1934)
Kinney v. Pollak
142 So. 390 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1932)
Copeland v. Keller
129 So. 571 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1930)
Gulf Electric Co. v. Fried
119 So. 685 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1928)
Langston v. Louisville & N. R.
108 So. 379 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1926)
Blankenship v. Hail
106 So. 594 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1925)
Daggett v. Boomer
99 So. 181 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1924)
Boshell v. Phillips.
93 So. 576 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1922)
Orr v. Stewart
84 So. 555 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1919)
Bickley v. Hays
62 So. 767 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1913)
State v. Superior Court
131 P. 1136 (Washington Supreme Court, 1913)
Singo v. Brainard
55 So. 603 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1911)
McCrory v. Guyton
45 So. 658 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1908)
Dennis v. Currie
142 Ala. 637 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1904)
Robertson v. Montgomery Base Ball Ass'n
140 Ala. 320 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 So. 360, 132 Ala. 222, 1902 Ala. LEXIS 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lide-v-park-ala-1902.