From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Threadgill v. Dixie Industrial Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama
Dec 19, 1918
80 So. 391 (Ala. 1918)

Opinion

5 Div. 718.

December 19, 1918.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Tallapoosa County; S. L. Brewer, Judge.

James W. Strother, of Dadeville, for appellants.

Bulger Rilance, of Dadeville, for appellee.


As we view what purports to be the decree in this cause, it was the mere expression of the opinion of the trial court unaccompanied by any definite, affirmative adjudication or sentence. There is no finding or adjudication as to who had the title, and, while there is a recital that the court "feels compelled to dismiss" the bill, this is not followed by any order or recital showing that the bill was actually dismissed. The mere expression of an opinion by the trial court, not accompanied by a decree or adjudication of the point or points expressed in the opinion, does not have the effect of a judicial finding or sentence. Ex parte Gist, 119 Ala. 463, 24 So. 831; Ex parte Elyton Land Co., 104 Ala. 88, 15 So. 939; Thompson v. Maddux, 105 Ala. 326, 16 So. 885. The result is that, as the record fails to disclose a decree that will support an appeal, this appeal is hereby dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

McCLELLAN, SAYRE, and GARDNER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Threadgill v. Dixie Industrial Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama
Dec 19, 1918
80 So. 391 (Ala. 1918)
Case details for

Threadgill v. Dixie Industrial Co.

Case Details

Full title:THREADGILL et al. v. DIXIE INDUSTRIAL CO

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Dec 19, 1918

Citations

80 So. 391 (Ala. 1918)
80 So. 391

Citing Cases

ORR v. STEWART

Black on Judgments, vol. 1, § 3. The Supreme Court has expressed similar views in the following cases: Ex…

Robinson v. Robinson

Code 1940, Tit. 7, §§ 156-167; Wolff v. Woodruff, 258 Ala. 1, 61 So.2d 69; Alexander City v. Cont. Ins. Co.,…