Case ID: ala_229/html/0298-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

156 So. 859
    SANFORD v. LIFE & CASUALTY INS. CO. OF TENNESSEE.
    8 Div. 605.
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    Oct. 11, 1934.
    Melvin Hutson and O. Kyle, both of Decatur, for petitioner.
    A. J. Harris, of Decatur, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

It may be conceded that the use of the word “sustained” in the judgment entry was equivalent to “granted,” but there is nothing in said judgment entry to show that the word “sustained” was followed up by an affirmative order of the court setting aside the judgment.

“When the judgment on the merits is in favor of a party appealing and there is no formal order or judgment setting the judgment aside, there can be nothing in the record prejudicial to the appellant or upon which he could predicate an appeal. The order or judgment granting a new trial and setting aside a former judgment is indispensable to the prosecution of an appeal based upon errors in granting a neio triail.” (Italics supplied.) 6 Mayfield’s Digest, p. 28; Chambers v. Morris, 144 Ala. 626, 39 So. 375.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, O. J., and GARDNER, BOÜL-DIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur. 
      <&wkey;Eor other cases see same topic and' KEY NUMBER in all' Key Number Digests and Indexes