Wood v. Finney

Supreme Court of Alabama

Wood v. Finney

92 So. 264, 207 Ala. 160, 1922 Ala. LEXIS 19

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 19, 1922

Docket8 Div. 406.

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 92 So. 264 (Wood v. Finney) 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

Wood v. Finney, 92 So. 264, 207 Ala. 160, 1922 Ala. LEXIS 19 (Ala. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

GARDNER, J.

In a cause on the equity docket of the circuit court of Madison county, wherein appellant was complainant and appellee respondent, a final decree in favor of the complainant was rendered on July 28, 1921. On September 24th thereafter the respondent filed his petition to have said decree set aside upon numerous grounds at this time unnecessary to consider, and on October 6th the court, being of the opinion the final decree was improvidently rendered, entered an order granting the respondent’s motion and vacating and setting aside said decree reinstating the cause on the docket. From this decretal order the complainant has prosecuted this appeal.

[1-3] Appeals are entirely of statutory creation. Ex parte Jones, 186 Ala. 567, 64 South. 960. That the order appealed from is not a final decree, so as to come within the provisions of section 2837 of the Code, needs no discussion. It is an interlocutory order of a character not embraced in section 2838 of the Code, and we are aware of no statute authorizing an appeal from such an order. The question is a jurisdictional one, and it is therefore the duty of the court to dismiss the appeal ex mero motu. Long v. Winona Coal Co. (Ala. Sup.) 89 South. 788 ; 1 Wise v. Spears, 200 Ala. 695, 76 South. 869; Coker v. Fountain, 200 Ala. 95, 75 South, 471.

Appeal dismissed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE and MILLER, JJ., concur.

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

GARDNER, J.

In a cause on the equity docket of the circuit court of Madison county, wherein appellant was complainant and appellee respondent, a final decree in favor of the complainant was rendered on July 28, 1921. On September 24th thereafter the respondent filed his petition to have said decree set aside upon numerous grounds at this time unnecessary to consider, and on October 6th the court, being of the opinion the final decree was improvidently rendered, entered an order granting the respondent’s motion and vacating and setting aside said decree reinstating the cause on the docket. From this decretal order the complainant has prosecuted this appeal.

[1-3] Appeals are entirely of statutory creation. Ex parte Jones, 186 Ala. 567, 64 South. 960. That the order appealed from is not a final decree, so as to come within the provisions of section 2837 of the Code, needs no discussion. It is an interlocutory order of a character not embraced in section 2838 of the Code, and we are aware of no statute authorizing an appeal from such an order. The question is a jurisdictional one, and it is therefore the duty of the court to dismiss the appeal ex mero motu. Long v. Winona Coal Co. (Ala. Sup.) 89 South. 788 ; 1 Wise v. Spears, 200 Ala. 695, 76 South. 869; Coker v. Fountain, 200 Ala. 95, 75 South, 471.

Appeal dismissed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE and MILLER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 So. 264, 207 Ala. 160, 1922 Ala. LEXIS 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wood-v-finney-ala-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack