Throne Franklin Shoe Co. v. Gunn

123 Ala. 640
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided November 15, 1898·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

DOWDELL, J.

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

Throne Franklin Shoe Co. v. Gunn, 123 Ala. 640 (Ala. 1898).

123 Ala. 640 (Throne Franklin Shoe Co. v. Gunn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

W. K. Syson Timber Co. v. State
123 So. 293 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1929)
Alabama Public Service Commission v. Alabama Power Co.
104 So. 814 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1925)
Worthington v. Morris
102 So. 620 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1925)
Bell v. King
98 So. 796 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1924)
Bennett v. Hall
69 So. 136 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1914)
Thomas v. Thomas
49 So. 1027 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1909)
Aston v. Dodson
49 So. 856 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1909)
Sumner v. Hill
47 So. 565 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1908)
Bickley v. Bickley
129 Ala. 403 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1900)