Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 6-5-440 (2026)
Simultaneous Actions for Same Cause Against Same Party Prohibited.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
No plaintiff is entitled to prosecute two actions in the courts of this state at the same time for the same cause and against the same party. In such a case, the defendant may require the plaintiff to elect which he will prosecute, if commenced simultaneously, and the pendency of the former is a good defense to the latter if commenced at different times.
(Code 1907, §2451; Code 1923, §5657; Code 1940, T. 7, §146.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 145
cases (29 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Ex Parte State Mut. Ins. Co., 715 So. 2d 207 (Ala. 1997).
Ex Parte State Mut. Ins. Co., 715 So. 2d 207 (Ala. 1997). “On March 7, 1996, after Tidmore had amended his complaint to include non-opt-out class allegations and had successfully sought the certification of a non-opt-out class, State Mutual moved the Hale County Circuit Court to abate Payne's action, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, §…”
Shawnee Terminal R.R. v. J.E. Estes Wood Co., 42 So. 3d 104 (Ala. 2010). “*107 ("Nettles"), petition this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Monroe Circuit Court to vacate an order denying their motion to dismiss, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-440, the action of Shawnee Terminal Railroad ("Shawnee") against them.”
Clark v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 24 So. 3d 424 (Ala. 2009). “1 Annette Clark appeals from an order of the Jefferson Circuit Court dismissing, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-440, her counterclaims against Wells Fargo Bank, N.”
Ex Parte Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 974 So. 2d 967 (Ala. 2007). “Although the insurer and its agent did not cite § 6-5-440, Ala. Code 1975, [1] in the motion to dismiss filed in the state court, they cited Ex parte Canal Insurance Co.”
Ex Parte Chapman Nursing Home, Inc., 903 So. 2d 813 (Ala. 2004). “Analysis Although McDonald's motion for a change of venue asserted no legal basis for the change, at the hearing conducted by the Tallapoosa Circuit Court McDonald contended that both Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-440, and Sessions v.”
Ex Parte First Nat. Bank of Jasper, 717 So. 2d 342 (Ala. 1997). “It did so, however, solely on the authority of Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-440, the abatement statute, which provides: "No plaintiff is entitled to prosecute two actions in the courts of this state at the same time for the same cause and against the same party.”
Regions Bank v. Reed, 60 So. 3d 868 (Ala. 2010). “As for Regions’ contention that the sisters’ claims in circuit court against Regions involving the trusts at issue in the final-settlement action should be abated, the sisters first argue that Regions waived *884 this defense in the circuit court because it did not plead…”
Little Narrows, LLC v. Scott, 1 So. 3d 973 (Ala. 2008). “On June 29, 2007, the Scotts moved the Jefferson Circuit Court to dismiss or abate Little Narrows' action on the basis of § 6-5-440, Ala.Code 1975, which states: "No plaintiff is entitled to prosecute two actions in the courts of this state at the same time for the same cause…”
Ex Parte LaCoste, 733 So. 2d 889 (Ala. 1998). “The Court of Civil Appeals held the dismissal to be proper under the abatement statute, Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-440. LaCoste v. SCI Alabama Funeral Services, Inc.”
First Nat. Bank of Jasper v. Crawford, 689 So. 2d 43 (Ala. 1997). “It petitioned this Court for writs of mandamus directing the circuit courts of Fayette and Walker Counties to abate the actions, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-440, which provides: "No plaintiff is entitled to prosecute two actions in the courts of this state at the same time…”
Vest v. Vest, 181 So. 3d 1049 (Ala. 2015). “with Ala.Code § 6-5-440, which prohibits a party from prosecuting two actions for the same cause and against the same party, is tantamount to making the defendant with a compulsory counterclaim in the first action a “plaintiff” in that action (for purposes of § 6-5-440) as of…”
Ex Parte Univ. of South Ala. Found., 788 So. 2d 161 (Ala. 2000). “Wood to dismiss the action pending in the Mobile Circuit Court, on the ground that its prosecution violates the provisions of § 6-5-440. Alternatively, they seek to compel the trial court to stay proceedings in that action until the action in the federal district court is…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.