Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

162 Ala. 562

Meyers v. Martinez

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 30, 1909

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1909-06-30

Heard before Hon. Saffold Behney. Bill by Mary J. Martinez and others, against Elizabeth D. Meyers, and others to re-open a decree of settlement of administrator’s accounts. From an order overruling the motion to dismiss the bill for Avant of jurisdiction apparent on its face, respondents appeal.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Appeal dismissed · Decided 1909-06-30

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently June 1965

15 state decisions

601909191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

MAYFIELD, J.

¶1A motion was made in the lower •court to dismiss the bill for want of jurisdiction appearing on the face of the bill. The motion was overruled, and from that order this appeal is attempted. .

¶2It is insisted by appellant that this is a plea to the jurisdiction, and that the order overruling the motion is a decree on the sufficiency of the plea, and will therefore support an appeal. This cannot be. A plea must deny or confess and avoid. The motion does neither. It was not set down for hearing on its sufficiency, and could not have been so set down, because it averred no facts to avoid, and did not deny any part of the bill. It is not a motion to dismiss for want of equity. The equity of the bill is not denied. The motion only denies the jurisdiction of the parties. There is no decree on demurrers. The order overruling the motion will- not support an appeal.

¶3The question of a judgment or decree in the lower court which -will support an appeal is jurisdictional in this court, and cannot be waived, though all parties consent to and insist upon consideration and review in this court. We see no merit in the motion, but we cannot, and do not, so decide.

¶4Appeal is dismissed.

Dowdeix, C. J., and Simpson and Denson, JJ., concur.
/162/ala/562 · .json · Public domain