From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roniotos v. Peerless Laundry Corporation

Supreme Court of Alabama
Apr 4, 1929
121 So. 530 (Ala. 1929)

Opinion

6 Div. 304.

April 4, 1929.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Joe C. Hail, Judge.

Thomas Dozier and Drennen Burns, all of Birmingham, for appellant.

In view of the decision, it is not necessary that brief be here set out.

William S. Pritchard and John D. Higgins, both of Birmingham, for appellee.

The judgment will not support an appeal. The remedy is by mandamus. Ingram v. Ala. P. Co., 201 Ala. 13, 75 So. 304; Brazel v. New South C. Co., 131 Ala. 418, 30 So. 832; Ex parte North, 49 Ala. 385; Ex parte Cunningham, 19 Ala. App. 587, 99 So. 834; O'Neal v. Kelly, 72 Ala. 559.


The appeal in this case is from the judgment of the circuit court granting the defendant's motion for a rehearing under what is generally known as the four months' statute. Code of 1923, § 9521.

It is the settled rule of our decisions that this judgment will not support an appeal. The insufficiency of the judgment to support an appeal is jurisdictional, and the court will ex mero motu dismiss the appeal. Ingram, Probate Judge, v. Alabama Power Co., 201 Ala. 13, 75 So. 304; Ex parte North, 49 Ala. 385.

Appeal dismissed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Roniotos v. Peerless Laundry Corporation

Supreme Court of Alabama
Apr 4, 1929
121 So. 530 (Ala. 1929)
Case details for

Roniotos v. Peerless Laundry Corporation

Case Details

Full title:RONIOTOS v. PEERLESS LAUNDRY CORPORATION

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Apr 4, 1929

Citations

121 So. 530 (Ala. 1929)
219 Ala. 157

Citing Cases

Vacalis v. Lowry

But the cases just cited have no application if the decree from which the appellants have sought to appeal is…

Roniotos v. Peerless Laundry Corp.

As to what occurred between the date of the judgment by default and the judgment upon the merits is not made…