From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Holley v. Harris

Supreme Court of Alabama
Jan 16, 1930
125 So. 660 (Ala. 1930)

Opinion

5 Div. 8.

January 16, 1930.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Elmore County; George F. Smoot, Judge.

G. P. Benton, of Fairfield, and Holley Milner, of Wetumpka, for appellant.

The decree appealed from taxes the appellant with costs of suit, and is in that respect one requiring the payment of money by her. She was therefore entitled to appeal upon making the affidavit. Code 1923, § 6138; Ex parte Barkley, 210 Ala. 466, 98 So. 463.

Huddleston Glover, of Wetumpka, for appellee.

The decree appealed from is not within the purview of section 6138 of the Code. Scott v. Shepherd, 215 Ala. 671, 112 So. 137; Lea v. Phillips, 216 Ala. 35, 112 So. 323; Ex parte Brown, 213 Ala. 7, 105 So. 170.


The bill was filed to cancel a contract in writing for the conveyance of property, real and personal, upon consideration that the grantee should maintain and support the grantor and his wife so long as either should live, and to reclaim the possession of the property.

The wife of the grantor and the wife of the grantee both signed the document, but are not named as parties in the body thereof. The wife of the grantee was joined as party respondent upon averments held sufficient on former appeal. Holley v. Harris, 215 Ala. 442, 111 So. 221. On final hearing, complainant was decreed relief as prayed.

The wife alone brings the case here on affidavit under Code, § 6138, without security for cost of appeal.

Appellee moves to dismiss the appeal for want of security for cost.

The case is essentially one for the recovery of property, not for the performance of some act or duty, as defined in Scott v. Shepherd, 215 Ala. 671, 112 So. 137.

Appellant insists this is a decree for the payment of money, in that the decree taxed respondents with the costs of suit.

Clearly enough the test made by the statute is the subject-matter of the suit, the nature of the judgment or decree touching the res, not the matter of costs, a mere incident to the suit. Appellant's contention would broaden the statute to all cases wherein a married woman loses, unless the trial court departs from the usual rule to award costs to the successful party.

The motion to dismiss the appeal must be granted.

Appeal dismissed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER and FOSTER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Holley v. Harris

Supreme Court of Alabama
Jan 16, 1930
125 So. 660 (Ala. 1930)
Case details for

Holley v. Harris

Case Details

Full title:HOLLEY v. HARRIS

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Jan 16, 1930

Citations

125 So. 660 (Ala. 1930)
125 So. 660

Citing Cases

Payne v. Hill

Appellant is not authorized to appeal without bond in this cause. Code 1940, Tit. 7, § 799; Ex parte Johns,…

Naff v. Fairfield-American Nat. Bank

This is not such a case as would give a married woman the right to appeal without giving security for costs…