Ex parte Favors
| Decision Date | 22 December 1932 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 156. |
| Citation | 225 Ala. 675,145 So. 146 |
| Parties | EX PARTE FAVORS. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Original petition of George W. Favors for mandamus to Hon. O. A. Steele, as judge of the circuit court of Etowah county.
Mandamus denied.
L. B. Rainey, of Gadsden, for appellant.
E. G. Pilcher and Goodhue & Lusk, all of Gadsden, for appellee.
On December 29, 1930, Mary Estelle Favors obtained a decree of divorce from her husband, George W. Favors.
On January 14, 1931, within thirty days after the rendition of the decree of divorce, the court rendering the decree, did, on application of complainant in whose favor the decree had been granted, enter a decree or order vacating the decree of divorce and dismissing the bill out of court.
By the present proceeding, original mandamus in this court, the husband seeks to have this latter order or decree vacated and set aside.
The theory of the petitioner is that the decree of divorce was rendered in vacation as defined by Code, § 6667, and that the court was without jurisdiction or authority to vacate the same except upon application filed by the second day of the next ensuing term under Chancery Rule 78.
It is sufficient to say that Code, § 6667, has no application to equity proceedings; Code, § 6636, governs. By that section the court is always open for equity business, and decrees become final after thirty days.
During this thirty-day period the cause is within the breast of the court, with full power to vacate the decree on application or ex mero motu. Rule 78 no longer has application to the matters here presented. Ex parte Howard (Howard v. Ridgeway) (Ala. Sup.) 142 So. 403; Gibson v. Farmers' Bank of Luverne, 218 Ala. 554, 119 So. 664; Anderson v. Steiner, 217 Ala. 85, 115 So. 4; Chilton v. Gurganus, 218 Ala. 145, 117 So. 655.
Mandamus denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Knight, 8 Div. 731
... ... purposes an action at law. This seems to the writer to be at ... variance with the decisions in Ex parte Colvert, 188 Ala ... 650, 65 So. 964, and Kilgore v. T.C., I & R. Co., ... 191 Ala. 189, 67 So. 1002; but the court here and now prefers ... to ... Gurganus, 218 Ala. 145, 117 ... So. 655; Ex parte Green, Superintendent of Banks, 221 Ala ... 298, 129 So. 72; Ex parte Favors, 225 Ala. 675, 145 So ... In the ... case of Ex parte Campbell, 229 Ala. 422, 423, 157 So. 675, ... 676, this court, dealing with the ... ...
-
Ex parte Industrial Finance & Thrift Corp.
...1940, Tit. 13, § 119; First Nat. Bank v. Garrison, 235 Ala. 687, 180 So. 690; Ex parte Howard, 225 Ala. 106, 142 So. 403; Ex parte Favors, 225 Ala. 675, 145 So. 146; Ex parte Sparks, 254 Ala. 595, 49 So.2d The question decisive of this case, manifest on the record, is whether or not the att......
-
Ex parte Campbell, 7 Div. 268.
... ... consideration of pending causes. It has no terms, in the ... ordinary meaning of the word as applied to a law court, and ... was not interrupted, except only as limited by the thirty-day ... period as employed in section 6636 of the Code. Ex parte ... Favors, 225 Ala. 675, 145 So. 146; Ex parte Howard ... (Howard v. Ridgeway et al.), 225 Ala. 106, 142 So. 403; ... Anderson v. Steiner, 217 Ala. 85, 115 So. 4 ... It ... follows that the petition for mandamus be and is hereby ... Petition ... ANDERSON, ... C.J., and ... ...
-
First Nat. Bank v. Garrison
... ... v. Caldwell, 3 Stew. 134; ... Browder v. Faulkner, 82 Ala. 257, 3 So. 30; ... Tippins v. Peters, 103 Ala. 196, 15 So. 564; Ex ... parte Favors, 225 Ala. 675, 145 So. 146; Ex parte Howard, ... Howard v. Ridgeway et al., 225 Ala. 106, 142 So. 403; ... Garrison v. First National Bank ... ...