Walker v. Lakewood Estates, Inc.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Walker v. Lakewood Estates, Inc.

112 So. 460, 216 Ala. 71, 1927 Ala. LEXIS 54

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedApril 14, 1927

Docket6 Div. 591.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 So. 460 (Walker v. Lakewood Estates, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Walker v. Lakewood Estates, Inc., 112 So. 460, 216 Ala. 71, 1927 Ala. LEXIS 54 (Ala. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Complainant to this hill was defendant in the suit of unlawful detainer and forcible entry and detainer brought by Lakewood Estates, Inc., this day decided under the title W. E. Walker v. Sam M. Adler et al., post, p. 76, 112 So. 458.

The primary purpose of the hill is for injunctive relief against the prosecution of the above-described action at law; complainant being of the opinion that the matter of equitable estoppel, upon which he relies as a defense, was not available to him in such action. The holding of the court in the case of Walker v. Adler et al., supra, is to the effect that such defense was available to this complainant as defendant in the action at law.

Aside from this, however, it was there further held that said suit at law, here sought to be enjoined, could not be further maintained by tbe plaintiff in said action. As tbe primary purpose of tbis bill was injunctive relief against tbe prosecution of this law action, and as the holding in said above-cited cause is decisive of that action favorable to complainant here, it results that this appeal presents a moot question only, and will therefore be dismissed. County of Montgomery v. Montgomery Traction Co., 140 Ala. 458, 37 So. 208. In Agee v. Cate, 180 Ala. 522, 61 So. 900, the court said:

“Nor is it customary to decide questions of importance, after their decision has become useless, merely to ascertain who is liable for the costs.”

The case of Postal Tel. Co. v. City of Montgomery, 193 Ala. 234, 69 So. 428, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 554, is distinguished from the instant case, as in that authority it was important to determine the liability upon the injunctive bond executed as a condition precedent to tbe issuance of the temporary writ of injunction. Here the injunction was denied, and therefore no such question of liability on the bond is involved. •

The record presenting a moot case, we think the appeal should be dismissed, and it will accordingly be so ordered.

Appeal dismissed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE, GARDNER, THOMAS, and BROWN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Complainant to this hill was defendant in the suit of unlawful detainer and forcible entry and detainer brought by Lakewood Estates, Inc., this day decided under the title W. E. Walker v. Sam M. Adler et al., post, p. 76, 112 So. 458.

The primary purpose of the hill is for injunctive relief against the prosecution of the above-described action at law; complainant being of the opinion that the matter of equitable estoppel, upon which he relies as a defense, was not available to him in such action. The holding of the court in the case of Walker v. Adler et al., supra, is to the effect that such defense was available to this complainant as defendant in the action at law.

Aside from this, however, it was there further held that said suit at law, here sought to be enjoined, could not be further maintained by tbe plaintiff in said action. As tbe primary purpose of tbis bill was injunctive relief against tbe prosecution of this law action, and as the holding in said above-cited cause is decisive of that action favorable to complainant here, it results that this appeal presents a moot question only, and will therefore be dismissed. County of Montgomery v. Montgomery Traction Co., 140 Ala. 458, 37 So. 208. In Agee v. Cate, 180 Ala. 522, 61 So. 900, the court said:

“Nor is it customary to decide questions of importance, after their decision has become useless, merely to ascertain who is liable for the costs.”

The case of Postal Tel. Co. v. City of Montgomery, 193 Ala. 234, 69 So. 428, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 554, is distinguished from the instant case, as in that authority it was important to determine the liability upon the injunctive bond executed as a condition precedent to tbe issuance of the temporary writ of injunction. Here the injunction was denied, and therefore no such question of liability on the bond is involved. •

The record presenting a moot case, we think the appeal should be dismissed, and it will accordingly be so ordered.

Appeal dismissed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE, GARDNER, THOMAS, and BROWN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 So. 460, 216 Ala. 71, 1927 Ala. LEXIS 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-lakewood-estates-inc-ala-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack