Lee v. City of Birmingham, 6 Div. 604.
| Decision Date | 15 May 1930 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 604. |
| Citation | 128 So. 902,221 Ala. 419 |
| Parties | LEE ET AL. v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 19, 1930.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Roger Snyder, Judge.
Bill for injunction by the City of Birmingham against Robert E Lee and others. From a decree granting temporary injunction respondents appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Charles W. Greer and G. Ernest Jones, both of Birmingham, for appellant.
Wilkinson & Burton and Hollis O. Black, all of Birmingham, for appellee.
Upon presentation of the original bill the circuit judge entered an order for the issuance of the temporary writ of injunction as prayed for therein. Section 8288, Code 1923. The appeal is from this order.
This is not such an interlocutory order from which an appeal is provided by statute. The question is a jurisdictional one and it is the duty of the court to dismiss the appeal ex mero motu. Long v. Winona Coal Co., 206 Ala. 315, 89 So 788; Minge v. Smith, 206 Ala. 330, 89 So. 473; City of Troy v. Murphree, 214 Ala. 118, 107 So. 83.
The remedy was by way of motion to dissolve the injunction under the provisions of section 8302, Code of 1923, and, if the ruling was adverse, to appeal therefrom as provided by section 6081, Code of 1923. Appeals are of statutory origin, and unless so provided no appeal will lie. Robertson v. Montgomery Base Ball Association, 140 Ala. 320, 37 So. 241; Acker v. Green, 216 Ala. 445, 113 So. 411; State v. Jabeles, 203 Ala. 670, 85 So. 16.
Appellants have, very naturally it appears, been misled by the broad language of section 8307, Code of 1923. But this section has relation to appeals prosecuted when application for injunction has been set down for hearing under section 8304 et seq., Code of 1923, which first appeared in the Code of 1907, and has no application to an ex parte order for temporary writ of injunction issued under authority of section 8288 of the Code. The distinction was commented upon in Zimmern v. Southern Rwy. Co., 206 Ala. 69, 89 So. 171, where it was pointed out that the statutory provisions applicable to cases of the character here presented differ and are inapplicable, where the matter is set down for hearing as provided by section 8304, supra. As previously stated, the question is a jurisdictional one, and we are therefore constrained to dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dortch Baking Co. v. Schoel
... ... 807 239 Ala. 266 DORTCH BAKING CO. ET AL. v. SCHOEL. 6 Div. 641.Supreme Court of AlabamaFebruary 22, 1940 ... Berkowitz and James L. Permutt, both of Birmingham, for ... appellants ... Harsh, ... Harsh & ... independent contractor existed where the person was a city ... salesman on commission, using his own car, going where ... ...
-
Brooks v. Everett, 7 Div. 504
...by § 1054, Title 7, Code 1940. Berman v. Wreck-A-Pair Bldg. Co., supra; Morris v. Sartain, 224 Ala. 318, 140 So. 373; Lee v. City of Birmingham, 221 Ala. 419, 128 So. 902; Zimmern v. Southern Ry., 206 Ala. 69, 89 So. 171; Dunn v. Ponceler, 235 Ala. 280, 178 So. The appellant's remedy in reg......
-
Lee v. City of Birmingham, 6 Div. 866.
...Lee and another. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill, respondents appeal. Reversed, rendered, and remanded. See, also, 221 Ala. 419, 128 So. 902. W. Greer, of Birmingham, for appellants. Wilkinson, Burton & Wilkinson, of Birmingham, for appellee. FOSTER, J. The bill in equity wa......
-
Alabama Power Co. v. City of Scottsboro
... ... 412 238 Ala. 230 ALABAMA POWER CO. v. CITY OF SCOTTSBORO ET AL. 8 Div. 986.Supreme Court of AlabamaJune 1, 1939 ... Rehearing ... 414] ... Martin, ... Turner & McWhorter, of Birmingham, and D. P. Wimberly, of ... Scottsboro, for appellant ... (H.B. 231, approved April 6, 1933, Gen.Acts 1933, Ex. Sess., ... p. 100), an election was duly held ... ...