Roberts v. Turner

Alabama Court of Appeals

Roberts v. Turner

116 So. 506, 22 Ala. App. 433, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 115

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 17, 1928

Docket8 Div. 621.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 116 So. 506 (Roberts v. Turner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roberts v. Turner, 116 So. 506, 22 Ala. App. 433, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 115 (Ala. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J„

This was a suit by one accommodation indorser against eleven oth *434 ers, all of whom had indorsed the note of “Royal Order of Lyons” and payable to Alabama Trust &. Savings Bank. The plaintiff claims that he paid the note which was thereupon transferred to him and upon which he brought suit against his eleven coindorsers for eleven-twelfths of the face of the note. Judgment by default was entered against eight of the defendants. Three litigated and two appealed, but no summons was issued to defendants, who did not appeal, as is required by section 6143 of the Code of 1923, nor was summons issued from this court before submission of the cause so as to have all parties to the action before this court, so that their rights might be determined in this appeal.

Appellee moves to dismiss the appeal. Under the decisions of the Supreme Court construing the above section of the Code, there is here a want of proper parties at the time of submission and the appeal must be dismissed. Sherrod v. McGruder et al., 209 Ala. 260, 96 So. 78; L. & N. R. R. v. Shikle, 206 Ala. 494, 90 So. 900. The correctness of the opinion in Sherrod v. McGruder, supra, has been recognized in Morrison v. Chambers, 212 Ala. 574, 103 So. 666; Rountree v. Saterfield et al., 211 Ala. 464, 100 So. 751; Henderson v. Henderson, 210 Ala. 73, 97 So. 353; and McCreight v. Porter, 210 Ala. 50, 97 So. 53.

The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

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

SAMFORD, J„

This was a suit by one accommodation indorser against eleven oth *434 ers, all of whom had indorsed the note of “Royal Order of Lyons” and payable to Alabama Trust &. Savings Bank. The plaintiff claims that he paid the note which was thereupon transferred to him and upon which he brought suit against his eleven coindorsers for eleven-twelfths of the face of the note. Judgment by default was entered against eight of the defendants. Three litigated and two appealed, but no summons was issued to defendants, who did not appeal, as is required by section 6143 of the Code of 1923, nor was summons issued from this court before submission of the cause so as to have all parties to the action before this court, so that their rights might be determined in this appeal.

Appellee moves to dismiss the appeal. Under the decisions of the Supreme Court construing the above section of the Code, there is here a want of proper parties at the time of submission and the appeal must be dismissed. Sherrod v. McGruder et al., 209 Ala. 260, 96 So. 78; L. & N. R. R. v. Shikle, 206 Ala. 494, 90 So. 900. The correctness of the opinion in Sherrod v. McGruder, supra, has been recognized in Morrison v. Chambers, 212 Ala. 574, 103 So. 666; Rountree v. Saterfield et al., 211 Ala. 464, 100 So. 751; Henderson v. Henderson, 210 Ala. 73, 97 So. 353; and McCreight v. Porter, 210 Ala. 50, 97 So. 53.

The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 So. 506, 22 Ala. App. 433, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-turner-alactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack