Case ID: ala_215/html/0216-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ANDERSON, C. J. ANDERSON, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(110 So. 131)
    PREDDY v. HERREN SALES CO.
    (7 Div. 655.)
    (Supreme Court of Alabama.
    June 10, 1926.
    Rehearing Denied Nov. 11, 1926.)
    1. Appeal and error <&wkey;l 13(1).
    Decree overruling motion to set aside a final decree is not appealable.
    On Rehearing.
    2. Mandamus <&wkey;l43(l).
    Application for mandamus to review a non-appealable decree, made for first time on rehearing after dismissal of appeal, comes too late.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; R. B. Carr; Judge.
    Bill in- equity by the Herren Sales Company against E. C. Preddy ahd others. Prom the decree respondent Preddy appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Chas. P. Douglas, of Anniston, for appellant.
    The decree appealed from is. a final decree, which will support an appeal. Code 1923, §§ 6078, 7857.
    Agee & Bibb and H. H. Evans, all of Annis-ton, for appellee.
    The order in this case is not appealable. Coker v. Fountain, 200 Ala. 95, 75 So. 471; Wood v. Finney, 207 Ala. 160, 92 So. 264; Code 1923, §§ 6078-6094.
   ANDERSON, C. J.

A final decree was rendered in this cause November 18, 1925. Thereafter the appellant moved the court to set aside said decree, and, after being passed from time to time, the motion was overruled February 16, 1926, and it is from this last decree overruling the motion that this appeal is prosecuted. This decree will not support an appeal, which must be dismissed upon the authority of Wood v. Finney, 207 Ala. 160, 92 So. 264.

Appeal dismissed.

SOMERVILLE, THOMAS, and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.

On Rehearing.

ANDERSON, C. J.

The appellant upon application for rehearing seeks for the first time a mandamus to review this nonappealable decree. True, this court has on former occasions awarded mandamus to review certain nonappealable orders or decrees, but the writ was asked for in the alternative upon the submission of the cause. Whether or not mandamus would be appropriate to review the order in question we need not decide, for the reason that the application for same comes too late. Cornelius v. Moore, 208 Ala. 237, 94 So. 57.

SOMERVILLE, THOMAS, and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.