Opinion
7 Div. 602.
May 13, 1926.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Shelby County; E. S. Lyman, Judge.
Pinkney Scott, of Bessemer, for appellants.
The bill has no equity. Wilson v. Miller, 143 Ala. 266, 39 So. 178, 111 Am. St. Rep. 42, 5 Ann. Cas. 724; Youngblood v. Youngblood, 54 Ala. 486; Peeples v. Burns, 77 Ala. 292; Torrent F. E. Co. v. Mobile, 101 Ala. 563, 14 So. 557; Smith v. Cockrell, 66 Ala. 83. The motion and petition to set aside the decree were sufficient. Code 1923, § 6606; 4 Code 1923, p. 933, rule 83.
Leeper, Wallace Saxon, of Columbiana, for appellees.
The granting or denying of the petition for rehearing is within the unrevisable discretion of the chancellor. Cox v. Brown, 198 Ala. 638, 73 So. 964; Ex parte Gresham, 82 Ala. 359, 2 So. 486; Chenault v. Milan, 205 Ala. 310, 87 So. 537; 4 Code 1923, p. 932, rule 81. No ground for reopening the case is shown, except a neglect to appear. Read v. Walker, 18 Ala. 323. There was no error in the orders on decrees. Houston v. Faul, 86 Ala. 232, 5 So. 433; Bieler v. Dreher, 129 Ala. 384, 30 So. 22; Code 1923, § 6650.
The allegations and exhibits of the bill of complaint are apt and appropriate for the relief sought; and, being confessed by the default of respondents, the trial court could not do otherwise than grant the relief and enforce the decree by writ of possession. Nor was there any ground presented upon which the court could have properly granted respondent's petition to set aside the decrees rendered, and allow them to make answer and litigate the cause upon its merits. A party who ignores a summons and, without good excuse, neglects to make his defense at the proper time has no standing in any court when he seeks to avoid the resulting judgment or decree. Read v. Walker, 18 Ala. 324, 333.
The decrees and orders of the circuit court will, therefore, be affirmed.
Affirmed.
ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.