Porter v. Martin
| Citation | 139 Ala. 318,35 So. 1006 |
| Parties | PORTER ET AL. v. MARTIN ET AL. |
| Decision Date | 20 January 1904 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from Chancery Court, Coffee County; W. L. Parks, Chancellor.
Bill by Susie Porter and others against H. L. Martin and others. From a decree dismissing complainant's bill, they appeal. Dismissed.
The appeal in this case is prosecuted from a decree dismissing a bill filed by the appellants against the appellees, for the want of equity, on motion made by the appellee. In this court there was a motion made to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the record was not filed within the time prescribed by law. The facts in reference to this motion are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
J. F. Sanders, for appellants.
Sollie & Kirkland and H. L. Martin, for appellees.
The decree in this case dismissing the bill for want of equity was entered on February 13, 1902. The appeal was taken on March 1, 1902. Notice of the appeal was served on the respondents on March 12, 1902. The return day of the appeal was the first Monday after the lapse of 20 days from March 12, 1902. At all events, the record should have been filed in this court on Monday of the week of the call of the Fourth Division in this court, which was June 2, 1902. In point of fact, the record was not filed in this court until July 5, 1902, after the term to which the appeal was taken. No excuse for this delay is shown. It cannot be affirmed that the appellee was not prejudiced by it. A motion to dismiss the appeal for this unwarranted delay in filing the record in this court was seasonably made at the term of court following the filing of the record here. The motion must prevail. Sears v. Kirksey, 81 Ala. 98, 2 So. 90; Winthrow & Gordon v. Woodward Iron Co., 81 Ala. 100, 2 So. 92; Bayzer v. McMillin Mill Co. (Ala.) 13 So. 144.
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hamrick v. Town of Albertville, 8 Div. 404.
... ... 41 and 42, page 1935, Code 1928, ... sections 6103, 6106, and 6107, Code; and the decisions ... applying the same, Porter v. Martin, 139 Ala. 318, ... 35 So. 1006; Southern R. Co. v. Abraham Bros., 161 ... Ala. 317, 49 So. 801; Blair v. Rutherford, 207 Ala ... 709, ... ...
-
Powell v. State
...of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. The motion is granted. Let the appeal be dismissed. So. Ry. Co. v. Abraham Bros., supra; Porter v. Martin, supra. dismissed. ...
-
Jones v. Higgins
...motion made by the appellee based on that ground must be granted. So. Ry. Co. v. Abraham Bros., 161 Ala. 317, 49 So. 801; Porter v. Martin, 139 Ala. 318, 35 So. 1006; Powell v. State, 5 Ala.App. 150, 59 So. Williams v. State, 6 Ala.App. 16, 60 So. 416; Swain v. State, 7 Ala.App. 5, 60 So. 9......
-
National Union v. Sherry
...of such failure, on motion made at the next term, with due diligence after the transcript has been filed." In the case of Porter v. Martin, 139 Ala. 318, 35 So. 1006, it was said: "The return day of the appeal was the Monday after the lapse of 20 days from March 12, 1902. At all events the ......