| Ala. | Apr 15, 1914
Lead Opinion
This appeal ivas taken from a decree of the chancellor sustaining demurrers to respondent’s cross-bill and dismissing the same. No action has been taken upon the original cause, but the same appears to have remained undisposed of on the docket.
The above-cited authority presents the indentical question involved in this appeal and is decisive and conclusive thereof. The decision followed the case of Thorne-Franklin Co. v. Gunn, 123 Ala. 640" court="Ala." date_filed="1898-11-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/throne-franklin-shoe-co-v-gunn-6518291?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6518291">123 Ala. 640, 26 South. 198, wherein, speaking to this question, the opinion concludes as follows: “The statute not authorizing the appeal, this court has no jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and will therefore ex mero motu dismiss the appeal.” •
Other cases directly in point are Parish v. Galloway, 34 Ala. 163" court="Ala." date_filed="1859-01-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/parishs-admr-v-galloway-6506480?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6506480">34 Ala. 163, reaffirmed in Thornton v. Kyle, 46 Ala. 379" court="Ala." date_filed="1871-06-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/thornton-v-kyle-6508086?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6508086">46 Ala. 379. Some of the reasons underlying this holding are found stated in the above-cited cases, as well as in Barclay v. Spragins, 80 Ala. 357" court="Ala." date_filed="1885-12-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/barclay-v-spragins-6512539?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6512539">80 Ala. 357. See, also, Randle v. Boyd, 73 Ala. 382, and Davis v. McColloch, 191 Ala. 520" court="Ala." date_filed="1914-11-07" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/davis-v-mccolloch-7367780?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7367780">191 Ala. 520, 67 South. 701, bearing somewhat upon the question, though not directly in point. The question is a jurisdictional one and requires that this court dismiss the appeal. This we are constrained to do.
Appeal dismissed.
Rehearing
ON REHEARING,
Application overruled.