Court Opinion

ID: 7361731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-27 23:04:41.422069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:20:39.710775
License: Public Domain

DOWDELL, J.
On the facts as shown by the record it was within the discretion of the trial court to permit the defendant to file the plea in abatement, to the jurisdiction of the court, and we fail to see any abuse in the exercise of this discretion. — Hawkins v. Armour Packing Co., 105 Ala. 545, 17 South. 16 ; Vaughan v. Robinson, 22 Ala. 519 ; Massy v. Steele’s Adm’r, 11 Ala. 340 ; Cobb v. Miller, 9 Ala. 499.
On the authority of the following cases we feel constrained to hold that the city court was without jurisdiction in the present case, and its several rulings on the demurrers and motions were free from error. — Central R. R. Co. v. Carr, 76 Ala, 388, 52 Am. Rep. 339 ; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Dooley, 78 Ala. 524 ; Iron Age Pub Co. v. W. U. Tel. Co., 83 Ala, 498, 3 South. 449 ; A G. S. R. R. Co. v. Chumley, 92 Ala. 317, 9 South. 286 ; R. & D. R. R. Co. v. Trousdale, 99 Ala. 394, 13 South. 23, 42 Am. St. Rep. 69 ; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Williams, 113 Ala. 402, 21 South. 938 ; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Nash, 118 Ala. 477, 23 South. 825, 41 L. R. A. 331, 72 Am. St. Rep. 181 ; Pullman. Car Co. v. Harrison, 122 Ala, 149, 25 South. 697, 82 Am. St. Rep. 68.
The judgment of the city court will be affirmed.
Haralson, Tyson, Simpson, and Denson, JJ„ concur.