Alabama Fruit Growing & Winery Ass'n v. Garner

Supreme Court of Alabama

Alabama Fruit Growing & Winery Ass'n v. Garner

119 Ala. 70

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJuly 1, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 119 Ala. 70 (Alabama Fruit Growing & Winery Ass'n v. Garner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alabama Fruit Growing & Winery Ass'n v. Garner, 119 Ala. 70 (Ala. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKELL, C. J.

— This appeal is from a judgment rendered by the county court of Cleburne County in a cause tried by the court without the intervention of a jury. In section 12 of the act creating said court (Acts 1896-7, p. 802) it is provided that when a cause is tried by the court without' the intervention of a jury “either party may by a bill of exceptions also present for review the conclusions and judgments of the court on the evidence, and the Supreme Court shall review the same without any presumption in favor of the court below on the evidence, and, if there be error, shall render such judgment in the cause as the court below should have rendered, or reverse and remand the same for further proceedings, as the Supreme Court shall deem right.” In construing provisions expressed in the same language, contained in the act creating the circuit court of Jefferson County, and in that- creating the City Court of Gadsden, this court has held that on an appeal from a judgment rendered in a cause- tried by said courts without the intervention of a jury, the bill of exceptions must show Avhat the conclusions and judgment of the trial court were, and unless the same are thus disclosed this court is without jurisdiction to review the action of the trial court in that behalf, although it may appear from the minutes of the court as certified to us what conclusion was reached and Avhat judgment was rendered. Williams v. Woodward Iron Co., 106 Ala. 254; Denson v. Gray, 113 Ala. 608. We have also held that unless an exception is reserved to the conclusion and judgment of the trial court, they cannot be reviewed. Hood v. Pioneer Min. & Mfg. Co., 95 Ala. 461; The bill of exceptions fails to disclose what was the judgment of the court below, and also fails to show that any exception thereto A\'as reserved. We are, therefore, without jurisdiction to review the correctness of the judgment. The only assignments of error, besides that going to the correctness of the court’s finding on the facts, relate to the admission of evidence against the [72]*72objections of appellant. Since we are unable to review tlie judgment, the rulings of the trial court on the objections to the evidence, even if erroneous, cannot work a reversal of the judgment, and it is, therefore, unnecessary to consider them. Denson v. Gray, supra.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BRICKELL, C. J.

— This appeal is from a judgment rendered by the county court of Cleburne County in a cause tried by the court without the intervention of a jury. In section 12 of the act creating said court (Acts 1896-7, p. 802) it is provided that when a cause is tried by the court without' the intervention of a jury “either party may by a bill of exceptions also present for review the conclusions and judgments of the court on the evidence, and the Supreme Court shall review the same without any presumption in favor of the court below on the evidence, and, if there be error, shall render such judgment in the cause as the court below should have rendered, or reverse and remand the same for further proceedings, as the Supreme Court shall deem right.” In construing provisions expressed in the same language, contained in the act creating the circuit court of Jefferson County, and in that- creating the City Court of Gadsden, this court has held that on an appeal from a judgment rendered in a cause- tried by said courts without the intervention of a jury, the bill of exceptions must show Avhat the conclusions and judgment of the trial court were, and unless the same are thus disclosed this court is without jurisdiction to review the action of the trial court in that behalf, although it may appear from the minutes of the court as certified to us what conclusion was reached and Avhat judgment was rendered. Williams v. Woodward Iron Co., 106 Ala. 254; Denson v. Gray, 113 Ala. 608. We have also held that unless an exception is reserved to the conclusion and judgment of the trial court, they cannot be reviewed. Hood v. Pioneer Min. & Mfg. Co., 95 Ala. 461; The bill of exceptions fails to disclose what was the judgment of the court below, and also fails to show that any exception thereto A\'as reserved. We are, therefore, without jurisdiction to review the correctness of the judgment. The only assignments of error, besides that going to the correctness of the court’s finding on the facts, relate to the admission of evidence against the [72]*72objections of appellant. Since we are unable to review tlie judgment, the rulings of the trial court on the objections to the evidence, even if erroneous, cannot work a reversal of the judgment, and it is, therefore, unnecessary to consider them. Denson v. Gray, supra.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 Ala. 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alabama-fruit-growing-winery-assn-v-garner-ala-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack