Miller v. Wood, 1 Div. 430

Decision Date27 August 1952
Docket Number1 Div. 430
Citation60 So.2d 353,257 Ala. 594
PartiesMILLER v. WOOD.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Edw. Powell Turner, Chatom, for appellant.

Grady W. Hurst, Jr., Chatom, for appellee.

LIVINGSTON, Chief Justice.

The appeal is from a decree of the lower court sustaining a demurrer to a cross-bill.

The controversy between the parties to this suit arose over the manner in which respondent was exercising his rights under a timber deed, from complainant's predecessor in title, to cut and remove certain timber from complainant's land.

In substance, the original bill alleged that respondent was cutting small timber to which he had no right or title under the timber deed, and was causing irreparable injury to the land and to the small timber of complainant by his logging methods and the construction and maintenance of unnecessary roadways over complainant's land. The bill sought an injunction, both temporary and permanent, damages for the injury to complainant's lands and young timber, and general relief.

Upon the filing of the suit the trial court entered a decree ordering the register of the court to issue a temporary injunction upon complainant's entering into bond conditioned as provided by Title 7, section 1043, Code of 1940. Bond was made and the temporary injunction issued.

Respondent answered, admitting the formal allegations of the bill and that complainant held title to the lands involved; but he denied that he was cutting timber that did not belong to him, that he was constructing and maintaining unnecessary roadways over complainant's land, and that he was injuring or destroying complainant's young timber. In his answer respondent incorporated what he termed a cross-bill. In substance, the cross-bill alleges that cross-respondent has interfered with cross-complainant's workmen and laborers, and has harassed ano worried cross-complainant in his timber operations; and that the purpose of this suit and injunction was to cause him to discontinue his logging operations, and that he has lost and is losing $75 per day as a result of this suit and the injunction issued in pursuance thereof.

Cross-complainant prays that upon a final hearing of said cause the temporary injunction will be dissolved and that he be awarded damages occasioned by the interruption of his logging operations. As stated, demurrer was sustained to the cross-bill and hence this appeal.

We think that appellant has misconceived his rights in the premises.

A temporary injunction...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Sycamore Mgmt. Grp., LLC v. Coosa Cable Co.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • September 30, 2011
    ...[rule] prescribes its terms and conditions, and the right of action arises immediately upon its breach’) (quoting Miller v. Wood, 257 Ala. 594, 595, 60 So.2d 353, 354 (1952)). Liability under the bond attaches only in accordance with the terms agreed upon. Id.”Coosa Cable's brief, at p. 14.......
  • U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. International Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 612
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • October 4, 1960
    ...Court cases is correct, for it is our view that the plaintiff below was in any event entitled to recover. As stated in Miller v. Wood, 257 Ala. 594, 60 So.2d 353, 354; 'The bond is the contract of the parties executing it, the statute prescribes its terms and conditions, and the right of ac......
  • Talladega Little League, Inc. v. Anderson
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • March 29, 1991
    ...that] the [rule] prescribes its terms and conditions, and the right of action arises immediately upon its breach." Miller v. Wood, 257 Ala. 594, 595, 60 So.2d 353, 354 (1952). The bonds in this case were conditioned upon a determination that the temporary injunction be found to have been wr......
  • Churchill v. Board of Trustees of University of Alabama in Birmingham
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • February 26, 1982
    ...it, the statute prescribes its terms and conditions, and the right of action arises immediately upon its breach." Miller v. Wood, 257 Ala. 594, 60 So.2d 353 (1952). Our courts have "By filing the application and the required bond the applicant takes his chance that there may be dissolution ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT