
    Thomas v. Thomas.
    
      Bill for Divorce.
    
    Decided June 10, 1909.
    49 South. 1027.
    
      Appeal and Error; Decree to Sustain; Overruling Demurrer to •Gross MU. — No appeal lies from a decree sustaining or overruling demurrer to a cross bill, such decree not coming within the purview of section 2838, Code 1907.
    Appeal from Anniston City Court.
    Heard before Hon. Thomas W. Coleman, Jr.
    Bill by Charles E. Thomas against Carrie B. Thomas for a divorce on the grounds of abandonment. The respondent filed a cross bill for divorce on the ground of cruelty and other statutory causes, and also prayed for the cancellation of an instrument in writing which is attached to her cross bill as an exhibit. From a decree overruling demurrers to the cross bill, complainant appeals.
    Dismissed.
    Blackwell & Agee, for appellant.
    Counsel discuss the demurrers to the cross bill 'and cite authority to sustain their contention, that the court erred in overruling them.
    Willett Sd Willett, for appellee.
    Counsel insist that the appeal is not authorized of our statutes and that the same should be dismissed. They cite section 2838, Code 1907, and the authorities thereunder cited.
   SIMPSON, J.

This is an appeal from a decree overruling a demurrer to a cross-bill. There is no authority of law for an appeal from an interlocutory decree overruling a demurrer to a cross-bill. — Code-1907, § 2838; Barclay, Assignee, et al. v. Spragins, 80 Ala. 357; Jones v. Woodward Iron Co., 90 Ala. 545, 8 South. 132; Festorazzi v. St. J. C. Ch., 96 Ala. 178, 10 South. 521; Buford v. Ward, 108 Ala. 307, 19 South. 357; Richardson v. First Nat. Bank, 119 Ala. 286, 24 South. 54; Woodruff v. Adair, 120 Ala. 659, 24 South. 1006; Throne-Franklin shoe Co. v. Gunn, 123 Ala. 640, 26 South. 198.

The appeal is dismissed.

Dowdell, C. J., and McClellan and Mayfield, JJ., concur.  