- Thomas A. Walker. The plaintiff instituted his action against the defendant inCl-for for seducing, debauching, &c., the wife of the plaintiff and made application to the court for the' allowance of interrogatories under the statute to the defendant, in aid of liis action. The' court refused the application, and to revise thfe action of the court, the writ of error in this case is sued out. 1.
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 1928
¶1I have sought in vain to find a precedent where a bill of discovery has been brought in aid of an action at law, to ¡recover damages for a tort done to the person of the plaintiff. In the case of Glynn v. Houston, 1 Keene, 329, it is said, both by the copnsel in argument and the court in delivering judgment, that no such case could be found. This, to my niipd is conclusive, that a plaintiff who has sued for a tort done to his person, cannot file a bill of discovery to compel the defendant to confess the comjnission of the ,tort.
¶22. But we think it settled by a previous decision of this court, that a writ .of error will not lie to review .the action of an inferior court, refusing to grant an order requiring a party, to whom interrogatories have been .propounded, to answer them under oath. In the case of Mallory v. Matlock, 7 Ala. 757, it is said, “ the refusal of the court tp grant an order, requiring the defendant to answer the interrogatories propounded to him, is not a matter that can be reviewed by writ of error.” It is not a final sentence, judgment or decree, but is merely an interlocutory order, ■ and does not necessarily enter into the final judgment. If the court should refuse to grant the order, when a proper application is made to it, this error may be corrected by mandamus duripg the pendency of the suit: But it cannot be reviewed by writ of error, nor can the plaintiff in error, *52by taking a non-suit because of the refusal of the court to make the order, bring the case before this court by this writ,
