Case ID: ala_120/html/0659-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Brickell, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Woodruff v. Adair.
    Appeal from the City Court of Talladega, in Equity.
    Heard before the Hon. John W. Bishop.
    S. W. John, for appellant.
    Browne & Dryer and Knox, Bowie & Dixon, for appellee.
    Mary J. Adair filed an original bill on the 20th day oj November, 1896, and as amended it made Mrs. T. S. Phillips and her husband, H. W. Phillips, J. W. Ryder, Mrs. Sarah E. Woodruff and others respondents. On the 20th day of February, 1897,. Mrs. Phillips and her said husband filed a separate answer, which they also made a separate cross bill to the original bill. On the 21st day of October, 1897, the respondent, Sarah E. Woodruff, filed her cross bill; making two cross bills in this suit. Afterwards,’ Mrs. Phillips and her husband, separately moved to dismiss Mrs. Woodruff’s cross bill, on the ground that it contained no equity. They each demurred also, assigning various grounds of demurrer. Upon a hearing of the motion to dismiss and the demurrers, the court below was of the opinion that, treating as amended- all amendable defects in Mrs. Woodruff’s cross bill, it would still be wanting in equity, and rendered a final decree dismissing it for want of equity. From this decree Mrs. Woodruff appeals, and she assigns its rendition as error.
    The appeal is dismissed on the authority of Barclay v. Spraggins, 80 Ala. 351; Jones v. Woodstock Iron Co., 90 Ala. 545 ; Festorazzi v. St. Joseph's Catholic Church, 96 Ala. 178, holding that an appeal does not lie from an interlocutory decree sustaining the demurrers to a cross bill or granting a motion to dismiss it for the want of equity.
   Opinion by

Brickell, C. J.