COLEMAN, Justice.
The respondent undertakes to appeal from a decree overruling and denying his motion to dissolve an injunction. The decree was filed February 22, 1973. It appears on page 77 of transcript.
Respondent is F. R. Ingram. Complainants are George Erwin and George Erwin Equipment Repair, Inc., a corporation. Complainants will sometimes be referred to in the singular as complainant or as Erwin.
Litigation began when respondent filed a complaint in detinue against complainant on December 16, 1971. In the complaint, respondent sought to recover certain machines, to wit: one ditch digging machine, one Lorain Mobile Crane, one tractor-shovel, and 'Two Jibs.' Respondent subsequently filed a detinue bond and affidavit. Other pleadings were filed by both parties in the detinue action.
While the detinue action was pending, the Supreme Court of the United States rendered decision in Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 92 S.Ct. 1983, 32 L.Ed.2d 556.
On November 7, 1972, respondent filed in the detinue action a motion asking the court to afford to complainant a hearing as required by Fuentes, and asking further that upon the hearing the court award to respondent possession of the property claimed, either with or without bond as the court may deem proper. The hearing was set for November 16, 1972.
On the day set, the parties appeared before the court. Counsel for each party made an opening statement. Respondent took the witness stand. After respondent had testified at some length, the following appears in the record:
'THE COURT: Mr. Bell, in your equity bill did you offer to do equity; that is, in behalf of the complainant. Has the complainant offered to do equity?
'MR. BELL: If I haven't, I will amend to do so.
'THE COURT: All right, sir, do you have any further statements to make to the Court? The Court would suggest that you do that, not require. The Court can't require you to do anything. The Court would suggest that you interline and put on Mr. Ingram's copy that the Complainant offers to do equity.
'MR. BELL: May I have leave of the Court to do this at this time?
'THE COURT: Yes, sir.
'A. I want to make this statement . . .
'THE COURT: All right.
'A. In the Bill of Complaint in Equity, I know nothing about this separate suit except that I received a letter, a copy of a letter sent to Your Honor, that he was going to file a suit or had filed a suit. As of this moment, I know nothing about that suit. This suit of mine has been pending in the law side of this court for many months and no action was taken in regard to any counter-suit in equity to this last suit that was filed.
'THE COURT: Do you have a copy of the equity complaint, Mr. Bell?
'Are you willing, Mr. Ingram, to accept Mr. Bell's copy of the suit and accept service of the suit?
'A. Oh, yeah, I will accept service on anything he wants to serve on me.
'THE COURT: All right, show that on the original here in this equity file that he accepts service and waives any further service that may be provided by law. Date it and let him sign it.
'A. That's all he has to do to certify that he gave a copy to me.
'THE COURT: Well, that's under the Statute of Notice, but under the Statute of Service you've got to show that the sheriff served you or you waived it, one or the other.
'A. As I understand, the sheriff has the paper now.
'THE COURT: Well, what I am trying to do is to keep the sheriff from serving or, if he does, you will already be served. You are also entitled, under the rules of the Court, to receive a copy of any pleadings, other than, of course, the original bill of Complaint, which is served by the sheriff.
'A. Your Honor, I inist (sic), at this time, on the right to file a bond in detinue to recover possession of the property and, if we can find out by litigation and find out under that bond if he was protected and the issues we can find out at a later date. I want possession of that property so I can do something about it. I don't know if he is able to pay for damages or . . .
'THE COURT: Well, the problem is, Mr. Ingram, you've got equitable matters here as alleged in this equity bill that can't be resolved in a detinue suit without another suit. The Court would prefer to settle this matter in one suit and think it would
be to your interest and to the other party that it be settled under one suit.
'A. Well, this is depriving me, after all these months, by a mere filing of a bill of complaint in equity and depriving me of my right to possession of that property under the detinue laws of Alabama. This is what this hearing is for and I would also like to make one more statement.
'THE COURT: Just make it to the Court Reporter from where you are, Mr. Ingram.
'A. This is part of my testimony and I say under oath that this property is mine. It belongs to me and belongs to no one else; that is, to say, the property sued for in the detinue suit.
'THE COURT: I think you need to put on some testimony, Mr. Bell, if you expect the Court to enjoin it. I think it should be determined in one lawsuit. I think this, you got two lawsuits filed here now. The detinue suit, if allowed to proceed, you've got to proceed with this equity suit or amend it and include this bond and all that stuff and sue him on the bond. In other words, it is going to take more than one lawsuit to dispose of it.
'MR. BELL: We feel that we are entitled to defend this action under our warehouseman's lein, until those matters be resolved and we would like to offer testimony.
'THE COURT: All right, the Court is ready to hear testimony and the Court would think, of course, that testimony would be necessary.'
George Erwin then testified for complainant and was cross examined by respondent. During cross examination, the following appears:
'THE COURT: Mr. Ingram, the Court does not want to restrict you in our cross-examination in any manner, but the Court understands that this case is certainly not being tried on its merits. It's a matter of whether the Court decides whether to enjoin or to allow the Plaintiff in this equity case to enjoin your detinue action and consolidate, more or less, all these matters in this one suit. You may proceed.'
After Erwin's testimony, argument of counsel was made. Next the following appears:
'RULING OF THE COURT
'BY HONORABLE JAMES H. SHARBUTT:
'The Court enjoins Case Number 1914, in the Circuit Court of Shelby County, Alabama, on condition that the Defendant, who are Complainants in Case Number 5419 in Equity, enter into a bond approved by the Register of this court in the amount of a Thousand Dollars, payable to the Respondent in Case Number 5419, as provided by the Code of Alabama.
'As this is machinery outside a warehouse, as stated, without cover, if Mr. Ingram will file an answer, I think this bill is not demurrable. I think it has equity and should be heard under the merits. If he will file an answer, I will set that case for trial prior to January 10th. It depends on his pleading; that is, the Respondent's pleading, of course, as to the progress of the case. Execute the Fiat and Bond and so forth and hand it, or mail it over, in order to process the proper papers.
'MR. INGRAM: I would like to ask the Court to submit a copy of this Bill of Complaint as a statement from the Court that it has been served on me here in court and that a copy of that Bill of Complaint be made a part of the record in this case being tried here this morning.
'MR. BELL: I would be entirely agreeable to the record indicating that it was a hearing in each of these two cases. One, on Ingram's motion and the other on my motion.
'MR. INGRAM: With Mr. Ingram objecting to the hearing on the equity case at this time.
'THE COURT: No sir. You may put that in the record, but the Court wants put in the record that no objection was made by Respondent Ingram in Equity Case 5419. In fact, he accepted service of the Bill of Complaint and implied to the Court that he waived any other service that might be required under the statutes of Alabama. Ket these exhibits, Mrs. Embry.
'MR. INGRAM: Let the record show that I object to the ruling of the court.
'THE COURT: I will let the record show that you object to how the Court rules. I have no objection to that whatsoever.'
The bill of complaint is endorsed as follows:
'I accept service of the foregoing bill of complaint. s/F. R. Ingram
'Filed in open court this the 16th day of November, 1972. s/ James H. Sharbutt Judge'
The court rendered a formal decree which is dated November 16, 1972, and was filed November 22, 1972. The decree recites that it appears to the court that there is equity in the bill, that complainant is entitled to a determination by the court of complainant's claim to possession of and a lien on the machines in suit, and that complainant is entitled to foreclose his lien 'if the same be upheld by the Court, in the action in equity, and substantial evidence being presented to the court in support thereof . . .'
The court decrees that respondent be enjoined from proceeding in the detinue action on condition that complainant file bond for $1,000.00 and that complainant has 'a substantial claim to the possession of the property sued for' in the detinue action, and the court declines to award possession of the property to respondent, 'either with bond or without bond.'
On December 11, 1972, respondent filed a 'MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DECREE OF THE COURT DATED NOV. 16, 1972, AND TO GRANT A NEW HEARING AND FOR OTHER RELIEF.'
The motion was set for hearing before the court on December 18, 1972.
On December 19, 1972, respondent filed an amendment to the motion.
By decree dated December 18, 1972, and filed December 21, 1972, the trial court denied 'the motion as amended' and allowed respondent 'until 4 o'clock P.M. on December...
