Stokes v. Hart

139 So. 2d 300, 273 Ala. 279, 1962 Ala. LEXIS 333
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided March 22, 1962·No. 4 Div. 72·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinions

LAWSON, Justice.

This is a boundary line dispute between appellees, as .complainants, and appellant, as respondent. There was a decree adopting the contention of complainants. Respondent has appealed.

Submission here was on appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal and on the merits.

Motion to Dismiss the Appeal

Appellees assert that the appeal should be dismissed in that the decree from which the appeal is sought to be taken is not a final decree.

There is no merit in this insistence. The decree fixes the boundary line between the lands of the complainants and the respondent as a certain section line. The fact that a surveyor was directed to make a survey to determine the exact location of the section line and to erect certain judicial landmarks at designated points does not infect the decree with interlocutory characteristics of the decree held insufficient to support an appeal in the case of Tanner v. Dobbins, 251 Ala. 392, 37 So.2d 520.

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

Stokes v. Hart, 139 So. 2d 300, 273 Ala. 279, 1962 Ala. LEXIS 333 (Ala. 1962).

139 So. 2d 300 (Stokes v. Hart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Prestwood v. Gilbreath
304 So. 2d 175 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1974)
Kubiszyn v. Bradley
298 So. 2d 9 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1974)
Morris v. Morris
273 So. 2d 203 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1973)
Cloud v. Southmont Development Company
253 So. 2d 298 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1971)
Cambron v. Kirkland
253 So. 2d 180 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1971)
Barnett v. Millis
246 So. 2d 78 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1971)
Foshee v. Mims
186 So. 2d 129 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1966)
Sylvest v. Stowers
166 So. 2d 423 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1964)