Opinion
8 Div. 637.
April 16, 1925.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; James E. Horton, Jr., Judge.
David A. Grayson, of Huntsville, for appellant.
Counsel argues for error in the decree, but without citing authorities.
R. E. Smith, of Huntsville, for appellees.
The cross-bill does not aver that cross-complainant had a meritorious defense to the claim of cross-respondent, and was subject to demurrer. Dunklin v. Wilson, 64 Ala. 162; Prudential v. Kerr, 202 Ala. 259, 80 So. 97.
The trial court correctly ruled that the cross-bill was substantially defective by reason of its failure to show that the cross-complainant — the judgment debtor — had a good and meritorious defense to the action. This requirement is thoroughly and soundly established by our decisions, and can no longer be a subject of controversy. Dunklin v. Wilson, 64 Ala. 162, 168; McAdams v. Windham, 191 Ala. 287, 68 So. 51; Reed v. Hammond, 196 Ala. 302, 71 So. 692; Ingram v. Ala. Power Co., 201 Ala. 13, 75 So. 304; Prudential, etc., Co. v. Kerr, 202 Ala. 259, 80 So. 97, citing the cases.
The demurrer to the cross-bill was properly sustained, and the decree of the circuit court will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.