Thomas v. Thomas

49 So. 1027, 161 Ala. 503, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 186
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided June 10, 1909·Published

Opinion

SIMPSON, J.

This is an appeal from a decree overruling a demurrer to a cross-bill. There is no authority of law for an appeal from an interlocutory decree overruling a demurrer to a cross-bill. — Code-1907, § 2838; [504] Barclay, Assignee, et al. v. Spragins, 80 Ala. 357; Jones v. Woodward Iron Co., 90 Ala. 545, 8 South. 132; Festorazzi v. St. J. C. Ch., 96 Ala. 178, 10 South. 521; Buford v. Ward, 108 Ala. 307, 19 South. 357; Richardson v. First Nat. Bank, 119 Ala. 286, 24 South. 54; Woodruff v. Adair, 120 Ala. 659, 24 South. 1006; Throne-Franklin shoe Co. v. Gunn, 123 Ala. 640, 26 South. 198.

The appeal is dismissed.

Dowdell, C. J., and McClellan and Mayfield, JJ., concur.

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

Thomas v. Thomas, 49 So. 1027, 161 Ala. 503, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 186 (Ala. 1909).

49 So. 1027 (Thomas v. Thomas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Barclay v. Spragins
80 Ala. 357 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1885)
Jones v. Woodstock Iron Co.
90 Ala. 545 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1890)
Festorazzi v. St. Joseph's Catholic Church
96 Ala. 178 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1892)
Buford v. Ward
108 Ala. 307 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1895)
Richardson v. First National Bank
119 Ala. 286 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1898)
Woodruff v. Adair
120 Ala. 659 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1898)
Throne Franklin Shoe Co. v. Gunn
123 Ala. 640 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1898)
Hall v. Succession of Richardson
24 So. 1006 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1899)