Court Opinion

ID: 9936633
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:58:27.208531+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:32:19.101435
License: Public Domain

With respect to the foregoing opinion on the merits I concur.
On the procedural question, however, I concur only in the result. It has long been my opinion that the method of review of motions to transfer was correctly stated in Esslinger v. Spragins, 236 Ala. 508, 183 So. 401, 403, as follows:
 "We have uniformly held that an order refusing to transfer a cause from the law docket to the equity docket may not be assigned for error 'on any sort of an appeal, and one which makes the transfer can only be assigned for error on appeal from a final decree.' Holder v. Taylor, 233 Ala. 477, 172 So. 761, 762; Derzis v. Cox, 223 Ala. 517, 137 So. 306; Ex parte Louisville N. R. Co., 211 Ala. 531, 100 So. 843; Pearson v. City of Birmingham, 210 Ala. 296, 97 So. 916; Smith v. Grayson, 214 Ala. 197, 107 So. 448; Wiggins v. Stewart Bros., 215 Ala. 9, 109 So. 101; Code, Section 6490."
See also Employers Ins. Co. of Alabama v. Brock, 233 Ala. 551
(1), 172 So. 671; Jones v. Wright, 220 Ala. 406(4),125 So. 645.
True, in the instant case, motion was granted transferring the cause to equity, but in equity demurrer was sustained to the bill, and the cause re-transferred to law. This was tantamount to a sustaining of a demurrer to the motion to transfer in the first instance. Jones v. Wright, supra.