Arnold v. City of Mobile

Alabama Court of Appeals

Arnold v. City of Mobile

30 So. 2d 40, 33 Ala. App. 94, 1947 Ala. App. LEXIS 420

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 15, 1947

Docket1 Div. 537.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 30 So. 2d 40 (Arnold v. City of Mobile) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arnold v. City of Mobile, 30 So. 2d 40, 33 Ala. App. 94, 1947 Ala. App. LEXIS 420 (Ala. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

CARR, Judge.

This cause originated in the Recorder’s Court, where appellant was charged with the violation of a city ordinance. Upon conviction there he took an appeal to the circuit court. The instant appeal follows . a judgment of conviction in the latter jurisdiction.

Appellant’s counsel has not filed a brief in this court; neither do we find any errors duly assigned.

Prosecutions for the violations of municipal ordinances are in their nature quasi criminal, and on appeal the appellate courts are controlled by the rules pertaining to civil cases insofar as assignments of error are concerned. Title 15, Sec. 389, Code 1940, has no application. Casteel v. City of Decatur, 215 Ala. 4, 109 So. 571; Peever v. City Com’rs of Florence, 26 Ala.App. 213, 157 So. 79; Gentle v. City of Huntsville, 26 Ala.App. 374, 160 So. 273.

It follows, therefore, that the judgment of conviction below must be and is ordered affirmed.

Affirmed.

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