Kirby v. Puckett
| Decision Date | 05 April 1917 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 989 |
| Citation | 75 So. 6,199 Ala. 594 |
| Parties | KIRBY v. PUCKETT. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Chancery Court, Lawrence County; James E. Horton, Jr., Chancellor.
Action by S.E. Puckett against Monroe Kirby. From a decree for complainant, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
G.O. Chenault, of Albany, for appellant.
D.C. Almon, of Albany, for appellee.
The decree of the chancellor overruling the demurrer to the bill as last amended is free from error.
The question then recurs to the allowance of the amendment by the chancellor, on complainant's motion, at the February term, 1916. The decree of the chancellor sustaining the demurrer to the bill was of date October 12, 1915. It allowed complainant 30 days from the enrollment of the decree within which to amend her bill of complaint, but no amendment was offered within the time allowed. Thereafter, at the next term of the chancery court (February 28, 1916), on motion of complainant, she was allowed to amend her bill, whereupon she filed the amendment in question.
The time limit to the right of amendment is the rendition of the final decree. Code 1907, § 3126; Pitts v. Powledge, 56 Ala. 147; Gilmer v. Wallace, 75 Ala. 220; Ex parte Ashurst, 100 Ala. 573, 13 So. 542; Wilkinson, Banks & Co. v. Buster, 115 Ala. 580, 22 So. 34; Vandeford v. Stovall, 117 Ala. 344, 23 So. 30. Amendment of a bill proper in itself, within the lis pendens, may be allowed even after reversal and remandment on appeal. It is only after a final decree that a motion to amend comes too late. Beatty v. Brown, 85 Ala. 209, 4 So. 609.
The decree of the chancellor is affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Conradi
...So far as the time limit is concerned, that limit to the right of amendment had not expired by the rendition of the final decree. Kirby v. Puckett, supra. amendment as a matter of right carried the defendant's cross-bill out of court; that is to say, complainant's motion to dismiss his suit......
-
Norville v. Seeberg
...§§ 339, 357. However, the time limit as to the right of amendment extends to the rendition of final decree. Code, § 3126; Kirby v. Puckett, 199 Ala. 594, 75 So. 6; v. Barrington, supra; Smith v. Lambert, 196 Ala. 269, 72 So. 118. The decree of the circuit court in equity is affirmed. Affirm......
-
Patton v. Darden
... ... Ala. 30, 134 So. 796. But since an amendment cannot be made ... after final decree (Sims Chan. Prac. §§ 420, 421; Kirby ... v. Puckett, 199 Ala. 594, 75 So. 6; Steagall v ... S.-S. S. & I. Co., 205 Ala. 100, 87 So. 787; Section ... 6558, Code), for that purpose a ... ...
- Burgess v. Burgess