Cole v. Law
| Decision Date | 25 November 1917 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 683 |
| Citation | 76 So. 995,200 Ala. 697 |
| Parties | COLE v. LAW et al. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Chancery Court, Coffee County; O.S. Lewis, Chancellor.
Action between Mary Cole and Malinda Law and others. From a decision in favor of the latter, the former appeals. Appeal dismissed.
J.A. Carnley, of Enterprise, for appellant.
W.L. Parks, of Andalusia, C.W. Simmons, of Enterprise, Claude Riley, of Elba, and M.S. Carmichael, of Montgomery, for appellees.
Appellant filed affidavit of inability to give security for costs, and that she is a married woman, the widow of Nathan Cole; but the court is of the opinion that Acts 1915, p. 715, section 2879, Code 1907, does not apply to this appeal. It is therefore ordered that, unless appellants give security for costs within 60 days from May 10, 1917, the appeal be dismissed. Appellants failing to give security as required, the appeal is dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peters v. Chas. Schuessler & Sons
...the Code, and was not a "married woman" within the purview of section 2879 of the Code amended by Acts of 1915, p. 715; and Cole v. Law, 200 Ala. 697, 76 So. 995. Referring the original record in Cole v. Law, supra, it is shown that the register in chancery had certified the appeal in Mary ......
-
Ex parte Barkley
... ... that "the change wrought by the amendatory act is no ... broader that its language imports." Neither Kimball ... v. Cunningham Hardware Co., 201 Ala. 409, 78 So. 787, ... nor Peters v. Schuessler, 208 Ala. 627, 95 So. 26-in ... which last named case Cole v. Law, 200 Ala. 697, 76 ... So. 995, was reviewed-sheds any light upon the question here ... involved ... From ... the record it appears that petitioner was able to give ... security for the costs of appeal, for she gave such security ... Her affidavit was that she was "totally ... ...