Thomas v. Davis
Decision Date | 30 June 1916 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 126 |
Citation | 72 So. 365,197 Ala. 37 |
Parties | THOMAS et al. v. DAVIS. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Walker County; J.J. Curtis, Judge.
Bill by Levi R. Davis against Willie Thomas and others, to cancel and annul a deed. From a judgment overruling demurrers to the bill, and entering the decree pro confesso, respondents appeal. Reversed and remanded.
Norman Gunn and J.B. Powell, both of Jasper, for appellants.
Ray & Cooner, of Jasper, for appellee.
The bill in this cause was filed on the 17th day of November 1913. On the 15th day of December, 1913, the respondents filed their demurrer to the bill. On that day (December 15 1913), the circuit judge signed and filed with the register the following decretal order:
The respondents having failed to file an answer to the bill, a decree pro confesso was entered by the circuit judge on the 21st day of January, 1914.
By the act approved August 2, 1907 (Local Acts, 1907, pp. 723-725), equity jurisdiction was conferred upon the circuit court in the counties of Walker and Winston. It seems to have been accepted that the act mentioned effected to clothe the circuit judge, as doubtless was its purpose, with the full powers and authority exercised by the chancellor. This act provides for the call of the equity dockets of the circuit court of Walker county on the "second Monday in March and September, of each year, and may continue one week," and, further, "that the chancery cases in the said circuit courts of Walker and Winston counties may be heard and passed upon at any other time than the time mentioned whenever the said circuit court is in session." The act approved November 23, 1907, fixing the time for holding the circuit court in Walker county (Local Acts, Spec.Sess. 1907, p. 23), so far as presently pertinent provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cartier v. Hengstler
...from further participation, if it is intended to deny their right to share in the subsequent profits. 67 So. 591; 202 Ill.App. 563; 72 So. 365; 81 W.Va. 1, 94 S.E. 388; 129 Wis. 524, N.W. 576. OPINION WOOD, J. On the 24th of February, 1921, the plaintiff below (appellee here) instituted thi......
-
Thomasson v. Benson Hardware Co., 4 Div. 579.
...court, and thereby relieve the parties and this court of a burden which would probably be wholly unnecessary. In the case of Thomas v. Davis, 197 Ala. 37, 72 So. 365, it is said that the decree on the demurrer was unauthorized and laid in error, which was available on appeal. And though it ......
-
Stuckey v. Murphy
...error. It is reversed. The cause is remanded that the respondents' demurrer may be disposed of according to accepted practices." 197 Ala. 39, 40, 72 So. 365. other course would be to disregard and emasculate rule 74. If a party and the court can disregard the rule and submit on demurrer wit......
-
Castleberry v. Castleberry
...to a denial to complainant of her day in court. Hughes et al. v. Stephens, Mayor, et al., 219 Ala. 134, 121 So. 397; Thomas et al. v. Davis, 197 Ala. 37, 72 So. 365. In proceeding to render the interlocutory decree denying temporary alimony and counsel fees, without a submission, and withou......