# Lunday v. Jones > Supreme Court of Alabama · February 14, 1920 · 204 Ala. 326 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3233567 ## Case - **Full name:** LUNDAY Et Al. v. JONES Et Al. - **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama - **Decided:** February 14, 1920 - **Citations:** 204 Ala. 326; 85 So. 411; 1920 Ala. LEXIS 156 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Opinion of the court - **Judges:** Gardner, Somerville - **Cited by:** 23 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3233567 ## Opinion text PER CURIAM. The majority of the court, consisting of ANDERSON, C. J., McCLELLAN, SAYRE, THOMAS, and BROWN, JJ., are of the opinion that the cause should be reversed for the reason there was no note of *327 testimony as required by Chancery Practice Rule 75 (Code 1907, p. 1551), under the authority of the recent ca&e of Potts v. Court of Com’rs, 203 Ala. 300 , 82 South. 550 , and the several authorities therein cited. It therefore results that the decree is reversed, and the cause remanded. Reversed and remanded.