Blair v. Thompson

Supreme Court of Alabama

Blair v. Thompson

52 So. 2d 692, 255 Ala. 613, 1951 Ala. LEXIS 200

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMay 24, 1951

Docket3 Div. 590

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 52 So. 2d 692 (Blair v. Thompson) 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

Blair v. Thompson, 52 So. 2d 692, 255 Ala. 613, 1951 Ala. LEXIS 200 (Ala. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

LAWSON, Justice.

This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of Montgomery County, in equity, rendered on October 9, 1950.

The testimony was taken orally before the trial judge and was taken down by the court reporter. The appeal was taken on October 11, 1950, two days after the decree was rendered. In compliance with the provisions of Equity Rule 56, Code 1940, Tit. 7, Appendix, the court reporter was required to transcribe the testimony. He is no longer the court reporter; he has left the state and it is not known where he can be located.

The certificate of appeal is in this court, but no transcript has been filed. Submisr sion was had on motion of appe'lee to dismiss the appeal because of failure to file transcript as required by § 769, Title 7, Code 1940, which section provides that in equity cases the transcript should be filed in the office of the clerk of this court within sixty days from the date of taking of the appéal. However, it has been held: “An appeal will not be dismissed, nor the judgment affirmed on certificate, upon the ground that the transcript was not filed within sixty days in an equity cause as per Code, § 6107 [§ 769, Title 7, Code 1940], where the transcript was on file and the cause ready for submission on the merits at the first call of the division from which the appeal comes. * * * ” Hinson v. Cook et al., 241 Ala. 70, 72, 1 So.2d 33, 35.

But in the instant matter the transcript was not filed at the time of the first or second call of the division from which the appeal comes. It is apparent from the answer filed by appellant to- appellee’s motion to dismiss that in all likelihood the transcript can never be filed, due to the fact that the transcript of the evidence cannot be obtained, [614]*614although appellant’s counsel Lave been diligent in' their efforts to obtain such transcript.

In vi.e'w "of the circumstances outlined above, we are constrained to the conclusion that the motion to dismiss the appeal is well igken and must be granted.

Appeal dismissed.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and FOSTER and STAKELY, JJ., concur.

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

LAWSON, Justice.

This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of Montgomery County, in equity, rendered on October 9, 1950.

The testimony was taken orally before the trial judge and was taken down by the court reporter. The appeal was taken on October 11, 1950, two days after the decree was rendered. In compliance with the provisions of Equity Rule 56, Code 1940, Tit. 7, Appendix, the court reporter was required to transcribe the testimony. He is no longer the court reporter; he has left the state and it is not known where he can be located.

The certificate of appeal is in this court, but no transcript has been filed. Submisr sion was had on motion of appe'lee to dismiss the appeal because of failure to file transcript as required by § 769, Title 7, Code 1940, which section provides that in equity cases the transcript should be filed in the office of the clerk of this court within sixty days from the date of taking of the appéal. However, it has been held: “An appeal will not be dismissed, nor the judgment affirmed on certificate, upon the ground that the transcript was not filed within sixty days in an equity cause as per Code, § 6107 [§ 769, Title 7, Code 1940], where the transcript was on file and the cause ready for submission on the merits at the first call of the division from which the appeal comes. * * * ” Hinson v. Cook et al., 241 Ala. 70, 72, 1 So.2d 33, 35.

But in the instant matter the transcript was not filed at the time of the first or second call of the division from which the appeal comes. It is apparent from the answer filed by appellant to- appellee’s motion to dismiss that in all likelihood the transcript can never be filed, due to the fact that the transcript of the evidence cannot be obtained, [614]*614although appellant’s counsel Lave been diligent in' their efforts to obtain such transcript.

In vi.e'w "of the circumstances outlined above, we are constrained to the conclusion that the motion to dismiss the appeal is well igken and must be granted.

Appeal dismissed.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and FOSTER and STAKELY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 So. 2d 692, 255 Ala. 613, 1951 Ala. LEXIS 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blair-v-thompson-ala-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack