Snider v. Funderburk
| Decision Date | 14 June 1923 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 593. |
| Parties | SNIDER v. FUNDERBURK. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Walter B. Jones, Judge.
Bill by S.D. Snider against Frances E. Funderburk. From a decree sustaining demurrers, complainant appeals. Appeal dismissed.
Ball & Beckwith, of Montgomery, for appellant.
Walton H. Hill and Hill, Hill, Whiting & Thomas, all of Montgomery, for appellee.
MILLER, J. S. D.
Snider filed this bill in equity on January 3, 1920, against Frances E. Funderburk. The defendant on January 22, 1920, filed demurrers to the bill of complaint, and on March 31, 1922, the defendant filed additional demurrers to it. On June 1, 1922, the court by decree sustained the demurrers of the defendant to the bill of complaint. The bill of complaint was not dismissed by the court; the decree simply sustained the demurrers to it. On November 29, 1922, the complainant appealed from that decree, gave security on that date for cost of appeal, which was approved by the register on November 29, 1922.
The decree sustaining demurrers to the bill of complaint is assigned as error. It was submitted in this court on June 7, 1923. Can we consider it? No, the appeal must be dismissed. It was properly taken by giving security for cost (Gen. Acts 1915, p. 711, approved September 22, 1915, amended Gen. Acts 1919, p. 84), but it was taken on November 29, 1922, from a decree rendered June 1, 1922, sustaining demurrers to the bill of complaint. This was more than 30 days after the decree was rendered. Appeals from decree sustaining demurrers to a bill of complaint must be taken within 30 days after the rendition of such decree. Section 2838, Code 1907, amended Gen. Acts 1915, p. 137; Minge v. Smith, 206 Ala. 330, 89 So. 473.
This appeal was taken too late from that decree. We have no jurisdiction to consider it. It must be dismissed. Boshell v. Phillips, 207 Ala. 628, 93 So. 576; Bickley v. Hays, 183 Ala. 506, 62 So. 767.
The appeal is dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewis v. Martin
... ... Smith, 206 Ala. 330, 89 So. 473. See Wadsworth v ... Goree, 96 Ala. 227. 10 So. 848; Nelms v ... McGraw, 93 Ala. 245, 9 So. 719; Snider v ... Funderburk, 209 Ala. 663, 96 So. 928; Boshell v ... Phillips, 207 Ala. 628, 93 So. 576; Code, 1907, § 2837 ... Had ... ...
-
Gray v. State ex rel. Atty. Gen.
...mero motu, because this court is without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Irwin v. Weil, 228 Ala. 489, 153 So. 746; Snider v. Funderburk, 209 Ala. 663, 96 So. 928; Boshell v. Phillips, 207 Ala. 628, 93 So. That brings us to the question of when an appeal is 'taken.' We cite the governin......
-
Hildebrand v. First Nat. Bank, 6 Div. 345.
... ... there provided, it is not taken at all. Peters v ... Schuessler, 208 Ala. 627, 95 So. 26, 27; Snider v ... Funderburk, 209 Ala. 663, 96 So. 928; Burgin v ... Sugg, 210 Ala. 142, 97 So. 216 ... The ... case of Peters v. Schuessler, ... ...
-
Irwin v. Weil, 8 Div. 441.
... ... dismissed ex mero motu, because this court is without ... jurisdiction to consider same. Snider v. Funderburk, ... 209 Ala. 663, 96 So. 928; Boshell v. Phillips, 207 ... Ala. 628, 93 So. 576; Bickley v. Hays, 183 Ala. 506, ... 62 So. 767 ... ...