Burgin v. Sugg
Decision Date | 17 May 1923 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 894. |
Citation | 97 So. 216,210 Ala. 142 |
Parties | BURGIN ET AL. v. SUGG ET AL. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 30, 1923.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Hugh A. Locke, Judge.
Bill by D. F. Sugg and Pauline Sugg against James B. Burgin and J. E Brown. From the decree respondents appeal. Affirmed.
W. A Jenkins, of Birmingham, for appellants.
Weatherly Birch & Hickman, of Birmingham, for appellees.
The former reports of appeals in this case are Burgin v. Sugg, 204 Ala. 270, 85 So. 533, and Burgin v. Sugg, 205 Ala. 664, 89 So. 31.
The amended bill of the respective parties at interest was brought in on pleading and proof, and final decree rendered June 24, 1922, settling the equities of the case in favor of the complainants, and ordering a reference by the register to ascertain and report the amount of the indebtedness. This was done on July 1 thereafter, fixing the amount of such indebtedness at $1,891.148; in this amount was included the sum of $195.36, as interest paid by D. F. Sugg on the Van-Brown mortgage. Exception was filed to the register's report for the allowance of this item, and the report was not otherwise questioned. On August 18, 1922, the court sustained that exception to the register's report and the item of interest, to wit, $195.36, was eliminated. In other respects the report was confirmed, and it was decreed:
The citation of appeal was directed to D. F. Sugg or his attorneys of record, and no mention was made therein of any other party "in the cause of D. F. Sugg, against James B. Burgin et al.," from which decree the appeal was said to be taken.
Under a long line of decisions there can be no doubt that the decree of June 24, 1922, was a final decree, settling the equities of the parties, from which the appeal may be taken. Ex parte Elyton Land Co., 104 Ala. 88, 15 So. 939; De Graffenried v. Breitling, 192 Ala. 254, 68 So. 265; Adams v. Sayre, 76 Ala. 509; Cochran v. Miller, 74 Ala. 50; Kimbrell v. Rogers, 90 Ala. 339, 7 So. 241; McClurkin v. McClurkin, 206 Ala. 513, 90 So. 917. That is to say, a final decree which will, under the statute, support an appeal, is one that ascertains and declares the rights of the parties to the suit, and settles all equities of the case in which it is rendered, "and the finality of such a decree is not affected, although there may be ordered at the same time a reference to the register to ascertain facts necessary for an account, and to state an account between the parties." De Graffenried v. Breitling, 192 Ala. 254, 260, 68 So. 265, 267; Wynn v. Tallapoosa County Bank, 168 Ala. 469, 482, 53 So. 228; Adams v. Sayre, 76 Ala. 509, 517; Peters v. Chas. Schuessler & Sons, 208 Ala. 627, 95 So. 26; Zimmerman v. Pugh (Ala. Sup.) 39 So. 989; Hendrix v. Francis, 203 Ala. 342, 83 So. 66; McCalley v. Finney, 198 Ala. 462, 73 So. 639.
However, the appeal was taken when the supersedeas bond was lodged with the register, if thereafter approved by that official, which appears to have been February 13, 1923. Jacobs v. Goodwater Graphite Co., 205 Ala. 112, 87 So. 363; Ory-Cohen v. Taylor, 208 Ala. 520, 94 So. 525. If not taken within the time prescribed by law, it is jurisdictional and must be dismissed. Walden v. Leach, 201 Ala. 475, 78 So. 381.
The only exception taken to the "register's report" was sustained by the chancellor ordering the elimination of the item of interest, to wit, $195.36. The appeal taken on February 13, 1923, was more than six months after the rendition of the decree of June 24, 1922, settling the equities of the case and the respective merits of the insistences of the parties. The motion is granted as to the assignments of error based on the rendition of the decree of date June 24, 1922.
As no appeal was taken within the time prescribed by law from the decree of date June 24, 1922, appellant is remitted to any error in the decree of August 18, 1922, rendered on the coming in of the register's report and eliminating the item of interest indicated, and in other aspects confirming that report for the sum of $1,696.12. Gainer v. Jones, 176 Ala. 408, 58 So. 288; McCalley v. Finney, 198 Ala. 462, 73 So. 639; Hodnett v. Blankenship, 151 Ala. 213, 44 So. 376; Kirkland v. Mills, 138 Ala. 192, 194, 35 So. 40; Alexander v. Bates, 127 Ala. 328, 342, 28 So. 415. In Foley v. Leva, 101 Ala. 395, 13 So. 747, Mr. Justice Haralson said:
Dickens v. Dickens, 174 Ala. 345, 353, 56 So. 809.
In Hodnett v. Blankenship, supra, Mr. Justice Dowdell said:
It was proper by the motion to strike the assignments of error bearing upon the rendition of the final decree of June 24 1922, as supported by Foley v. Leva, 101 Ala. 395, 399, 13 So. 747, and authorities there cited, Stoudenmire...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Walker v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
... ... other defendant. The effect of this verdict was a finding of ... not guilty as to the engineer. Burgin v. Sugg, 210 ... Ala. 142, 97 So. 216; Wilder v. Bush, 201 Ala. 21, ... 75 So. 143; Flack v. Andrews, 86 Ala. 395, 5 So ... 452; Clinton ... ...
-
Williams v. Knight, 8 Div. 731
... ... applying only when a divorce is granted." ... See, ... also, Cheairs v. Osborn et al., 26 Ala.App. 362, 159 ... So. 702. And in Burgin et al. v. Sugg et al., 210 ... Ala. 142, 97 So. 216, a question of jurisdiction being ... presented by a bill in chancery, it was held where an ... ...
-
Woodward Iron Co. v. Dean
...to the pleading, the recital of Walton is shown to have been Dean, and in such respects the decree is self-corrective. Burgin v. Sugg, 210 Ala. 142, 97 So. 216; v. Andrews, 86 Ala. 395, 5 So. 452; Clinton Min. Co. v. Bradford, 200 Ala. 308, 312, 76 So. 74, and authorities. The petition for ......
-
Jacobson v. Wickam
... ... 896; Klein v. Ass'n., (Ill.) ... 83 N.E. 434; Rawley v. Burris, (Tenn.) 47 S.W. 176; ... Land Co. v. Cook, (Ala.) 27 So. 559; Burgin v ... Sugg, (Ala.) 97 So. 216; Wheelwright v. Roman, ... (Utah.) 165 P. 513; Deifenderfer v. State, 13 ... Wyo. 387; Idem, 14 Wyo. 302; Todd's ... ...