McKenzie v. Jensen

75 So. 939, 200 Ala. 191, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 365
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedMay 10, 1917
Docket1 Div. 973.
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 75 So. 939 (McKenzie v. Jensen) 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
McKenzie v. Jensen, 75 So. 939, 200 Ala. 191, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 365 (Ala. 1917).

Opinion

• MAYFIELD, J.

This is the second appeal in this cause. See report of former appeal (195 Ala. 36, 70 South. 678) for a statement of the ease.

[1] We cannot consider any of the questions, 'rulings as to which are assigned as errors or argued, for want of jurisdiction of the appeal; the same not having been taken within the time prescribed by the statute. The appeal, of course, falls within and is controlled by article 6, chapter 53, of the Code, and not within the general statutes governing appeals from judgments in circuit courts. The time within which this particular appeal should have 'been taken was fixed by section 2S57 of the Code, which reads as follows:

“An appeal to the Supreme Court may be taken from fie judgment of the circuit court on an. appeal brought to such court under the provisions of this article, within thirty days after such judgment.”

[2, 3] This attempted appeal was not taken until long after the 30 days had expired. While no motion or insistence is made by appellee to dismiss- the appeal for want of jurisdiction, that question is involved, and is one which the court must take ex mero rnotu. The Supreme Court will not consider an appeal where it is’ taken after the time allowed by law for the taking of such appeal. The joinder in error may waive irregularities in the mode of taking the appeal, but it does not dispense with the time of appeal. Etowah M. Co. v. Wills Valley Co., 121 Ala. 672, 25 South. 720; Alexander v. Bates, 127 Ala. 328, 28 South. 415. It may be that this question was availing on the former appeal ; if so, it escaped our attention as well as that of counsel.

Appeal dismissed.

• ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Sims v. Sims
35 So. 2d 89 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1948)
Daniel v. Ormand
163 So. 361 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1935)
Hart v. Greet
134 So. 658 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1931)
Sims v. Paeske
134 So. 660 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1931)
McKenzie v. Jensen
101 So. 755 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1924)
Essex Storage Electric Co. v. Victory Lumber Co.
108 A. 426 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
75 So. 939, 200 Ala. 191, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckenzie-v-jensen-ala-1917.