Porter, Eppes & Redd v. Tate Furniture Company.
Assumpsit.
(Decided April 15, 1915.
68 South. 322.)
Appeal and Error; Judgment to Support; Mandamus. — A judgment dismissing a claim to part of property levied on under an attachment sued out by a plaintiff against a defendant, will not support an appeal, the claimant’s remedy being by mandamus.
Appeal from Clay County Court.
Heard before Hon. E. J. Garrison.
Action in attachment by the Tate Furniture Company against the B. C. Bynum Mercantile Company, in which the firm of Porter, Eppes & Redd interposed a claim to some of the property levied on under the attachment and made the bond required. There was a *10judgment of dismissal of the claim suit, rendered on motion of plaintiff to dismiss, and claimant appealed to the Court of Appeals, and it transferred the cause (under Acts 1911, p. 150, § 6) to the Supreme Court.
Dismissed.
Cornelius & Cornelius, for appellant.
Walter S. Smith, for appellee.
McCLELLAN, J.
This appeal must he dismissed, for want of jurisdiction in this court to entertain it. There is no final judgment, determining the rights of the parties litigant to this claim suit, thereby finally concluding nothing as respects the merits of the contest. Unless otherwise provided by statute, the aggrieved party’s remedy is by mandamus. — Davis v. McColloch, 391 Ala. 520, 67 South. 7001. There is no statute, of which we are aware, authorizing appeals of the character here sought to be taken.
The appeal is therefore dismissed, the appellant having merely mistaken his remedy.
Appeal dismissed.
Anderson, C. J., and Sayre and Gardner, JJ., concur.