Bell v. Burns

Supreme Court of Alabama

Bell v. Burns

90 So. 491, 206 Ala. 465, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 197

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 30, 1921

Docket6 Div. 490.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 90 So. 491 (Bell v. Burns) 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

Bell v. Burns, 90 So. 491, 206 Ala. 465, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 197 (Ala. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

SAYRE, J.

Error is asssigned upon the refusal of charges numbered 3 and 4 in appellant’s motion for a new trial. We need not inquire as to the propositions of law asserted in these charges, for there is no bill of exceptions, nor is the court’s oral charge set out in the record, as it should be. In this state of the record, reversible error cannot be affirmed of the trial court’s ruling in respect of these charges. These charges may have been inapt to the case made by the evidence, or they may have been fully covered by the court’s oral charge. One purpose of Act Sept. 25, 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 815), amend *466 ing section 5364 of tlie Code, was to prevent reversals in cases of this sort — eases in this category.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. J., and GARDNER and Filler, jj., concur.

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

SAYRE, J.

Error is asssigned upon the refusal of charges numbered 3 and 4 in appellant’s motion for a new trial. We need not inquire as to the propositions of law asserted in these charges, for there is no bill of exceptions, nor is the court’s oral charge set out in the record, as it should be. In this state of the record, reversible error cannot be affirmed of the trial court’s ruling in respect of these charges. These charges may have been inapt to the case made by the evidence, or they may have been fully covered by the court’s oral charge. One purpose of Act Sept. 25, 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 815), amend *466 ing section 5364 of tlie Code, was to prevent reversals in cases of this sort — eases in this category.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. J., and GARDNER and Filler, jj., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 So. 491, 206 Ala. 465, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-burns-ala-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack