Winn v. Dillard

Supreme Court of Alabama

Winn v. Dillard

57 Ala. 167

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedDecember 15, 1876

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 57 Ala. 167 (Winn v. Dillard) 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

Winn v. Dillard, 57 Ala. 167 (Ala. 1876).

Pincite

Opinion

STONE, J.

Motion is made by appellee to dismiss the appeal taken in this cause from the chancellor's ruling on the cross-bill, because there is no final decree in the cause. Under the statute approved March 20, 1875 — Pamph. Acts, p. 189 — we do not consider this point well taken. We hold that the provision for appeal from a decree “ sustaining or overruling a demurrer to a bill in equity," Ac., as provided in that statute, is broad enough in its terms and policy to authorize an appeal from such ruling on a cross-bill.

Whether, in the absence of that statute, an appeal would lie to this court from a decree finally disposing of a cross-bill, but leaving the original bill undisposed of, is a question which has been decided both ways by this court. — See [168]*168Parish v. Galloway, 34 Ala. 164; Brooks v. Woods, 40 Ala. 540.

There is, in the present record, a security for costs of appeal from the ruling of the chancellor on the demurrer to the original bill, which seems to have been given and approved in time. But the register’s certificate takes no notice of such appeal. That appeal is not before us, and, in the present state of the record, can not be considered by us.

Motion to dismiss appeal overruled.

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

STONE, J.

Motion is made by appellee to dismiss the appeal taken in this cause from the chancellor's ruling on the cross-bill, because there is no final decree in the cause. Under the statute approved March 20, 1875 — Pamph. Acts, p. 189 — we do not consider this point well taken. We hold that the provision for appeal from a decree “ sustaining or overruling a demurrer to a bill in equity," Ac., as provided in that statute, is broad enough in its terms and policy to authorize an appeal from such ruling on a cross-bill.

Whether, in the absence of that statute, an appeal would lie to this court from a decree finally disposing of a cross-bill, but leaving the original bill undisposed of, is a question which has been decided both ways by this court. — See [168]*168Parish v. Galloway, 34 Ala. 164; Brooks v. Woods, 40 Ala. 540.

There is, in the present record, a security for costs of appeal from the ruling of the chancellor on the demurrer to the original bill, which seems to have been given and approved in time. But the register’s certificate takes no notice of such appeal. That appeal is not before us, and, in the present state of the record, can not be considered by us.

Motion to dismiss appeal overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 Ala. 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winn-v-dillard-ala-1876.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack