Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mathews Mathews, of Bessemer, for appellant. The defendant's answer was subject to the demurrers interposed. 103 Ala. 497, 15 So. 741; 41 Ala. 310; (Ala. Sup.) 31 So. 109; Gen. Acts 1919, p. 228. The court should have rendered judgment for the amount accrued. 14 C. J. 723-727; Gen. Acts 1919, p. 225. Tillman, Bradley Baldwin, of Birmingham, for appellee. The remedy was by certiorari and not by appeal. Woodward Iron Co. v. Bradford, ante, p. 447, 90 So. 803; 3 C. J. 300 and 316; 188 Ala. 650, 65 So. 964; Acts 1919, p. 225. It follows that the appeal is improper. This appeal was submitted under rule 46 of Supreme Court Practice (65 South. vii), and the opinion of the court delivered by 178 Ala. xix.
Judges
  • THOMAS, J.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mathews Mathews, of Bessemer, for appellant. The defendant's answer was subject to the demurrers interposed. 103 Ala. 497, 15 So. 741; 41 Ala. 310; (Ala. Sup.) 31 So. 109; Gen. Acts 1919, p. 228. The court should have rendered judgment for the amount accrued. 14 C. J. 723-727; Gen. Acts 1919, p. 225. Tillman, Bradley Baldwin, of Birmingham, for appellee. The remedy was by certiorari and not by appeal. Woodward Iron Co. v. Bradford, ante, p. 447, 90 So. 803; 3 C. J. 300 and 316; 188 Ala. 650, 65 So. 964; Acts 1919, p. 225. It follows that the appeal is improper. This appeal was submitted under rule 46 of Supreme Court Practice (65 South. vii), and the opinion of the court delivered by 178 Ala. xix.
Judges
  • THOMAS, J.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

STEAGALL v. SLOSS-SHEFFIELD STEEL IRON CO.

THOMAS, J.

A primary question presented is: Can a party to a proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Gen. Acts 1919, p. 206 et seq.) appeal from a judgment rendered by the circuit court, or is the sole revisory remedy by certiorari?

The rulings sought to be presented in this court for review by appeal, rather than by certiorari, will not be considered, on the authority of Woodward Iron Co. v. Bradford, 90 So. 803. A question of jurisdiction being presented, and which may not be waived by consent, the appeal will be dismissed ex mero motu.

Ante, p. 447.

Appeal dismissed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLELLAN and SOMERVILLE, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

STEAGALL v. SLOSS-SHEFFIELD STEEL IRON CO
(Oct 20, 1921)