Court Opinion

ID: 9670486
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:21:31.875142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:05.019669
License: Public Domain

On Further Motion for Rehearing
6 Div. 893 (53010).
The judgment on the original application for rehearing filed by appellant was entered during the present term of this court, and, therefore, we have the right to order the ’ case placed on our rehearing docket for further consideration. Kinney v. Pollak, 225 Ala. 229, 142 So. 390. It has been so ordered and upon such a rehearing and further consideration, we are of the opinion that we were in error in holding that the decree of September 28, 1948 was a final decree, and we now hold that such decree is of the kind from which an appeal could have been taken to this court within thirty days from its rendition. Sec. 755, Title 7, Code 1940; Nearhos v. City of Mobile, 257 Ala. 161, 57 So.2d 819, and cases cited.
As shown in the original opinion, the appeal was not taken until April 26, 1949, much more than thirty days after the date on which the decree was rendered; hence our former judgment should not be disturbed for the appeal came much too late and therefore is subject to dismissal by the court ex mero motu. Since a timely appeal could have been maintained, the petition for alternative writ of mandamus is due to be denied.
Our former opinion is modified as above indicated, and as so modified, the rehearing is overruled.
All the Justices concur except MAY-FIELD, J., who was not a member of the court on original submission.