Pake v. Leinkauf Banking Co.
| Decision Date | 14 April 1914 |
| Docket Number | 810 |
| Citation | 65 So. 139,186 Ala. 307 |
| Parties | PAKE v. LEINKAUF BANKING CO. PILLANS, HANAW & PILLANS v. SAME. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
On Application for Rehearing, May 14, 1914
Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Mobile County; Saffold Berney Judge.
Proceedings for the removal of Harry B. Pake as assignee for the benefit of creditors of the Leinkauf Banking Company. From a decree of removal, the assignee appeals, and Pillans, Hanaw & Pillans, as counsel, appeal from the decree fixing their counsel fees. Dismissed.
Hanaw & Pillans and R.T. Ervin, all of Mobile, for appellant.
Gregory L. & H.T. Smith and Charles W. Tompkins, all of Mobile, for appellee.
DE GRAFFENRIED, J.
In the case of Ex parte Rebecca Jonas, 64 So. 960 (present term) this court held that the decretal order removing Harry B Pake as trustee was not such an order as would support an appeal to this court by said Harry B. Pake. For the reasons set out in the opinion in the above-cited cause, the appeal in the case at bar is dismissed from the docket of this court.
In this proceeding, Pillans, Hanaw & Pillans, who are not parties to this cause, but who are of counsel for Harry B. Pake, who was, until his removal as trustee, one of the parties to the cause, have appealed to this court from the decree fixing the amount of their counsel fees. A person not a party to a cause cannot prosecute an appeal to this court, and for that reason the appeal of said Pillans, Hanaw & Pillans is hereby dismissed out of this court.
Appeals dismissed. All the Justices concur.
On Application for Rehearing.
This is, in reality, an application for a rehearing in the case of Ex parte Rebecca Jonas (present term) 64 So. 960. In that case a majority of the members of this court expressed the opinion that the order of removal of the trustee, Harry B Pake, was not a final decree, in that it settled no substantial equity in the cause. In that case this court did not, as is now contended by counsel for appellants on this application for rehearing, indicate that there could be only one final decree in a cause pending in the chancery court within the meaning of section 2837 of the Code of 1907. The contrary was well understood by each member of this court. In truth the opinion in that case places emphasis upon the fact that, for a decree to be final within the meaning of the above section of the Code, it must settle some of the substantial merits or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duncan v. First Nat. Bank of Jasper
...595 (1963); Security Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Crescent Realty Co., 273 Ala. 624, 143 So.2d 441 (1962); Pake v. Leinkauf Banking Co., 186 Ala. 307, 65 So. 139 (1914); Hunt v. Houtz, 62 Ala. 36 (1878).In Taylor, supra, this Court affirmed, stating:"The owner was not a party to the ins......
-
Monroe v. Winn
... ... court of Alabama in Pake v. Leinkauf Banking Co., ... 186 Ala. 307, 65 So. 139, 140, adhered to its holding and ... ...
-
Schulz v. State
...So.2d 83 (Ala.1985); Security Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Crescent Realty Co., 273 Ala. 624, 143 So.2d 441 (1962); Pake v. Leinkauf Banking Co., 186 Ala. 307, 65 So. 139 (1914); Clemens v. Patterson, 38 Ala. 721 (1863); Watson v. May, 8 Ala. 177 (1845); and Adams v. Robinson, 1 Minor 285 Daught......
-
In re Rich Hardware Co.
...arising out of the same estate as did the appeal in Re Jonas, supra, the court reaffirmed the Jonas case. On rehearing the court treated the Pake case as in reality an application for a rehearing of Jonas case, 186 Ala. 567, 64 So. 690. The court emphasized that, for a decree to be final wi......