State v. Seminole Bottling Co., 5 Div. 261
| Decision Date | 13 January 1938 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 261 |
| Parties | STATE v. SEMINOLE BOTTLING CO. et al. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Chambers County; W.B. Bowling, Judge.
Bill for an injunction by the State of Alabama against the Seminole Bottling Company and H.T. Woodall. From a decree dissolving a temporary injunction, complainant appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
A.A Carmichael, Atty. Gen., Wm. S. Pritchard, Sp. Asst. Atty Gen., and Winston B. McCall of Birmingham, for the State.
Morrow & Bruce, of Lanett, Jacob A. Walker, of Opelika, and Will O Walton, of LaFayette, for appellees.
The motion of defendants to dissolve the temporary injunction, theretofore issued in this cause, was granted, and decretal order entered dissolving the injunction on July 13, 1937. The appeal was taken September 17, 1937, and comes too late, as more than 30 days had elapsed from the rendition of the decree. Trump v. McDonnell, 112 Ala. 256, 20 So. 524; Section 6081, Code of 1923.
It was, of course, open to complainant to appeal within the 30-day period and seek a reinstatement of the injunction pending the appeal as provided by section 8312, Code of 1923. But this course was not pursued, and instead complainant filed a motion to have the chancellor set aside the decree of July 13, 1937, dissolving the injunction. Upon the hearing of this motion, the same was denied, and complainant attempts likewise to prosecute an appeal from that order. We know of no statute, and none has been called to our attention, which authorizes an appeal from an interlocutory order of this character. It is well settled that appeals are of statutory origin, and unless so provided no appeal will lie. Greenwood v. State, 229 Ala. 630, 159 So. 91; Lee v. City of Birmingham, 221 Ala. 419, 128 So. 902; Morris v. Sartain, 224 Ala. 318, 319, 140 So. 373.
This motion dealt with an interlocutory decree, and was itself of interlocutory character. The order denying the motion partakes of the same nature and is interlocutory, and not a final decree within the meaning of our appeal statutes.
Nor do we construe the motion as one to reinstate the injunction (Chancery Rule 100, 4 Code 1923, p. 938; section 8312, Code) but to set aside a decree dissolving the injunction which, if granted, would indirectly result in restoring the injunction to its former status, not by any order of reinstatement, but only as a consequence of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gordon v. Central Park Little Boys League
...days. Title 7, § 757, Code 1940, as interpreted in the cases of Trump v. McDonnell, 112 Ala. 256, 20 So. 524, and State v. Seminole Bottling Co., 235 Ala. 217, 178 So. 237; Francis v. Scott, 260 Ala. 590, 72 So.2d 93. The instant appeal was taken October 22, 1956, and comes too late as an a......
-
Smith v. Smith
...the kind now under consideration. Of course an appeal is statutory and no appeal lies unless provided by statute, State v. Seminole Bottling Co., 235 Ala. 217, 178 So. 237, but we do not think that the motion to dismiss the appeal is well taken. There is no requirement in § 786, Title 7, Co......
-
Francis v. Scott
...or discharging injunctions within thirty days from the date of the judgment,--as interpreted in the cases of State v. Seminole Bottling Co., 235 Ala. 217, 178 So. 237, and Trump v. McDonnell, 112 Ala. 256, 20 So. It has been held that section 1057, supra, authorizing an appeal within ten da......
-
State v. LeCroy, 3 Div. 88
...is no right of appeal. See; Covington Electric Cooperative v. Alabama Power Company, 277 Ala. 162, 168 So.2d 5; State v. Seminole Bottling Co., 235 Ala. 217, 178 So. 237; Lewis v. Martin, 210 Ala. 401, 409, 98 So. 635. If the legisalture alone can give the right of appeal, would it not be a......