Money v. Galloway, 4 Div. 27.
| Citation | 236 Ala. 55,181 So. 252 |
| Decision Date | 12 May 1938 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 27. |
| Parties | MONEY v. GALLOWAY ET AL. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Henry County; D. C. Halstead, Judge.
Bill in equity by J. G. Money against J. M. Galloway and others. From a decree denying a motion to amend bill after final decree, complainant appeals, and respondent moves to dismiss.
Appeal dismissed.
F. W. Fish, of Abbeville, and G. D. Halstead, of Headland, for appellant.
John W. Rish, of Dothan, for appellees.
A motion to amend a bill in equity by bringing in a new and necessary party respondent, presented after a final decree entered upon a submission for final decree upon pleadings and agreed statement of facts, necessarily calls for setting aside the decree, and reopening of the case as a pending cause.
Such a motion, if deemed sufficient, must be treated as an application for rehearing in equity.
While section 6670 of the Code, fixing thirty days as the period within which the judgment or decree is under the control of the court, applies to a decree in equity, a motion for rehearing of a decree in equity is still governed by Chancery Rule 81, as respects an appeal from a ruling thereon. A decree overruling such motion is not appealable. Ex Parte Upchurch, 215 Ala. 610, 112 So. 202; Ex Parte Lineville National Bank, 217 Ala. 381, 116 So. 419; Simpson v. American Legion, 230 Ala. 487, 161 So. 705.
The instant appeal is prosecuted from the decree of January 25, 1938, denying the motion of June 24, 1937, to amend the bill by adding a party respondent after final decree of June 22d, dismissing the bill. The appeal does not bring up such final decree for review. Whether the time for such appeal had expired is not involved.
The decree appealed from not supporting an appeal, the same must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Touching the procedure when there is an absence of necessary parties brought forward by plea or answer of respondents, we call attention to sections 6562, 6563 of the Code.
Appeal dismissed on motion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Valenzuela v. Sellers
...v. Rudolph, Ala.Sup., 36 So.2d 902; Scott v. Scott, 247 Ala. 266, 24 So.2d 25; Linn v. Linn, 242 Ala. 688, 8 So.2d 187; Money v. Galloway, 236 Ala. 55, 181 So. 252; Equity Rule 62, Code 1940, Title 7 Our view is that no error is shown. Affirmed. BROWN, LIVINGSTON, and STAKELY, JJ., concur. ......
-
Valenzuela v. Sellers
...v. Rudolph, Ala.Sup., 36 So.2d 902; Scott v. Scott, 247 Ala. 266, 24 So.2d 25; Linn v. Linn, 242 Ala. 688, 8 So.2d 187; Money v. Galloway, 236 Ala. 55, 181 So. 252; Rule 62, Code 1940, Title 7 Appendix. Our view is that no error is shown. Affirmed. BROWN, LIVINGSTON, and STAKELY, JJ., concu......
-
Wheeler v. Bullington
...318, 36 So.2d 902; Brown v. Lee, 242 Ala. 159, 161, 5 So.2d 620; Robertson v. Council, 238 Ala. 432, 435, 191 So. 257; Money v. Galloway, 236 Ala. 55, 56, 181 So. 252; Commercial Credit Co. v. State, 224 Ala. 123, 125, 139 So. 271; Ford v. Ford, 218 Ala. 15, 16, 117 So. 462; Ex parte Upchur......
-
Continental Development Corp., Inc. v. Vines
...62 relative to rehearing that a decree overruling a motion for rehearing is not appealable, unless it modifies the decree. Money v. Galloway, 236 Ala. 55, 181 So. 252; Scott v. Scott, 247 Ala. 266, 24 So.2d 25. Assignment of error 4 is clearly without any The decree of the trial court is af......