Throne Franklin Shoe Co. v. Gunn
Opinion
The appeal in this case is from a decree sustaining a demurer to a cross-bill and dismissing the same on motion for want of equity. It is an interlocutory decree, that does not come within the provisions of section 427 of .the Code, and from which an appeal will lie.—Barclay v. Spragins, 80 Ala. 357; Jones v. Woodstock Iron Co. 90 Ala. 545; Festorazza v. Catholic Church, 96 Ala. 178; Nabors v. Morris Mining Co., 103 Ala. 543; Buford v. Ward, 108 Ala. 307.
The statute not authorizing the appeal, this court has no jurisdiction of the subject matter, and will, therefore, ex mero motu dismiss the appeal.—Nabors v. Morris, supra; Clark v. Spencer, 80 Ala. 345, and authorities above cited.
Appeal dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
123 Ala. 640 (Throne Franklin Shoe Co. v. Gunn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.