Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

270 Ala. 201

Ogle v. Ogle

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided October 8, 1959

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1959-10-08

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently February 1969

12 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““We have no alternative but to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. It has been held consistently that no appeal will lie from a decree overruling a motion for a rehearing in equity. Ogle v. Ogle, 270 Ala. 201 , 117 So.2d 191 , and numerous authorities there cited.” Hale v. Kirby, 271 Ala. 289, 290 , 122 So.2d 919, 920 .”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Reames v. Holman

Relies on Whitman v. Whitman · Sweeney v. Tritsch · Capps v. Norden

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1959-10-08

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

GOODWYN, Justice.

¶1Appellant, J. R. Ogle, filed a bill of complaint in the circuit court of Morgan County, in equity, against his divorced wife, Bessie Ogle, appellee, seeking cancellation of a deed. A final decree was rendered denying the relief prayed for and dismissing the bill. Appellant then moved for a rehearing pursuant to Equity Rule 62, Tit. 7, Code 1940, Appendix. A decree was rendered overruling the motion. This appeal is from that decree.

¶2We have no alternative but to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. It has been held consistently that no appeal will lie from a decree overruling a motion for a rehearing in equity. Equity Rule 62, supra; Duke v. Scotch Lumber Co., 266 Ala. 53, 54, 94 So.2d 194; Wheeler v. Bullington, 264 Ala. 264, 266, 87 So.2d 27; Capps v. Norden, 261 Ala, 676, 680, 75 So.2d 915; Wood, Wire & Metal Lathers International, Local No. 216 v. Brown & Root, Inc., 258 Ala. 430, 432, 63 So.2d 372; Whitman v. Whitman, 253 Ala. 643, 645, 46 So.2d 422; Valenzuela v. Sellers, 253 Ala. 142, 145, 43 So.2d 121; Rudolph v. Rudolph, 251 Ala. 317, 318, 36 So.2d 902; Spurling v. Spurling, 250 Ala. 612, 35 So.2d 502; Linn v. Linn, 242 Ala. 688, 690, 8 So.2d 187; Brown v. Lee, 242 Ala. 159, 161, 5 So.2d 620; Robertson v. Council, 238 Ala. 432, 435, 191 So. 257; Money v. Galloway, 236 Ala. 55, 56, 181 So. 252; Commercial Credit Co. v. State, 224 Ala. 123, 125, 139 So. 271; Ford v. Ford, 218 Ala. 15, 16, 117 So. 462; Ex parte Upchurch, 215 Ala. 610, 611, 112 So. 202.

¶3The rehearing motion made no point that the decree sought to be set aside is void on its face. In this connection, see Wheeler v. Bullington, supra; Capps v. Norden, supra; Robinson Co. v. Beck, 261 Ala. 531, 533, 74 So.2d 915; Ford v. Ford, supra; Sweeney v. Tritsch, 151 Ala. 242, 245, 44 So. 184.

¶4Appeal dismissed.

LAWSON, STAKELY, MERRILL and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.
/270/ala/201 · .json · Public domain