Temple v. Dooley
| Decision Date | 20 April 1916 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 921 |
| Parties | TEMPLE v. DOOLEY. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; W.W. Haralson, Judge.
Attachment suit by L.P. Dooley, plaintiff-landlord, against T.T. Temple defendant-tenant. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff on affirmative charge on the trial of defendant's plea in abatement, and defendant appeals. Transferred from the Court of Appeals under section 6, p. 450, Act of April 18, 1911. Dismissed.
McCord & Orr, of Albertville, for appellant.
Street & Bradford, of Albertville, for appellee.
The questions presented in the assignment of errors arose in the trial of an attachment, sued out by a landlord against his tenant, to recover an amount due for rent and advances. The ground for the attachment was that the defendant-tenant had removed from the premises a part of the crop raised on the rented premises, without paying the rent and advances, or either, and without the consent of the landlord. Defendant interposed a plea in abatement, that the alleged ground for the attachment did not exist. At plaintiff's request, the court gave the affirmative charge on trial of defendant's said plea. There was verdict and judgment for the plaintiff on this issue, and from this finding the defendant appeals. There was no final judgment in the cause.
There must be a valid judgment from which an appeal may be taken to support the appeal. If there be none such, the court will of its own motion dismiss the appeal. Gunter v Mason, 125 Ala. 644, 27 So. 843.
Certain interlocutory judgments, rendered before the final determination of the cause, will support an appeal to the Supreme Court if the record affirmatively shows that the appeal is within the terms of the statute (section 2841 of the Code of 1907). Interlocutory judgments overruling a motion to dismiss or quash an attachment, or sustaining a demurrer to a plea in abatement to an attachment or sustaining an attachment against matters set up in abatement of it either in the way of an agreed case or by plea or otherwise, may be reviewed on appeal, provided the appeal be taken with "the consent of the opposite party or his attorney." No such consent of the plaintiff or of his attorney is shown by the record. Such consent is a condition precedent, and is jurisdictional. Stanton v. Heard, 100 Ala. 515, 14 So. 359; Crumley Bros. v. Bryan & Co., 69 Ala. 91. Appeals are of statutory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vacalis v. Lowry
... ... 266] of a decree to support an appeal is jurisdictional. Jackson v. Jackson, 211 Ala. 277, 100 So. 332; Temple v. Dooley, 196 Ala ... 360, 71 So. 683; Wise v. Spears, 200 Ala. 695, 76 So. 869; Wood v. Finney, 207 Ala. 160, 92 So. 264; Thomas v. Thomas, 214 ... ...
-
Hurt v. Knox
...taken therefrom, and therefore that appeal will be dismissed here ex mero motu. Gunter v. Mason, 125 Ala. 644, 27 So. 843; Temple v. Dooley, 196 Ala. 360, 71 So. 683; Dunning v. Holcombe, 203 Ala. 546, 84 So. Adams v. Wright, 129 Ala. 305, 30 So. 574. The separate appeals of the judgment de......
-
Ex parte State
... ... parties consent to and insist upon a review of the case by ... this court. Temple v. Dooley, 196 Ala. 360, 71 So ... 683; Hall v. First Bank of Crossville, 196 Ala. 627, ... 631, 72 So. 171; Meyers v. Martinez, 162 Ala. 562, ... ...
-
Blackford v. Jefferson Specialties, Inc.
...600; Wallace v. Screws, 225 Ala. 187, 142 So. 572; Alston v. Marengo County Board of Education, 224 Ala. 676, 141 So. 658; Temple v. Dooley, 196 Ala. 360, 71 So. 683; Lathrop Lumber Co. v. Pioneer Lumber Co., 207 Ala. 522, 93 So. 427. It is so Appeal dismissed. LIVINGSTON, C.J., and SIMPSON......