Jackson v. Jackson
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.
The appeal is taken from an interlocutory decree allowing alimony and counsel fees pendente lite.
The decree is not such as has been made by statute to support an appeal before final decree. The question presented is jurisdictional, and jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent. Richardson v. First Nat. Bank of Gadsden, 119 Ala. 286, 24 South. 54; Nabers, Receiver, v. Morris Min. Co., 103 Ala. 543, 15 South. 850; Barclay, Assignee, v. Spragins, Adm’r, 80 Ala. 357. That is to say, the appeal must be dismissed by this court ex mero motu, for the reason that the court has no jurisdiction to…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Ex Parte DunlapSupreme Court of Alabama · 1923
- Ex Parte EubankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1921
- Ex Parte CairnsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1923
- Ex parte JonesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1911
- Barclay v. SpraginsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1885
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Ex Parte JacksonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
- Gibson v. Farmers' Bank of LuverneSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- Ex Parte AppersonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
- Rogers v. RogersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1926
- Vacalis v. LowrySupreme Court of Alabama · 1966
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.