Broadus Cotton Mills v. Alston & Gamble

Supreme Court of Alabama

Broadus Cotton Mills v. Alston & Gamble

46 So. 450, 155 Ala. 272, 1908 Ala. LEXIS 267

DecidedApril 16, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 46 So. 450 (Broadus Cotton Mills v. Alston & Gamble) 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

Broadus Cotton Mills v. Alston & Gamble, 46 So. 450, 155 Ala. 272, 1908 Ala. LEXIS 267 (Ala. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

ANDERSON, J.

The court made an order which appears in the judgment entry of date August 27, 1907, giving 60 days from the adjournment of court for bill of exceptions. The next order was signed by the judge the 20th of November extending the time, and which was over 60 days after extension. It is true the first order gave 60 days after the adjournment of the court; but there is nothing in the record to indicate when the court adjourned, and we cannot presume that it continued in session as late as September 20th. Nor does it appear from the second order that it was made within 60 days after the adjournment of court, or before the expiration of the time previously given. As the paper purporting to he a bill of exceptions was not signed within the time authorized by law, it cannot be considered by this court; and, there being no assignment of error relating to the record proper, the judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Tyson, C. J., and Dowdell and Simpson, JJ., concur.

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

ANDERSON, J.

The court made an order which appears in the judgment entry of date August 27, 1907, giving 60 days from the adjournment of court for bill of exceptions. The next order was signed by the judge the 20th of November extending the time, and which was over 60 days after extension. It is true the first order gave 60 days after the adjournment of the court; but there is nothing in the record to indicate when the court adjourned, and we cannot presume that it continued in session as late as September 20th. Nor does it appear from the second order that it was made within 60 days after the adjournment of court, or before the expiration of the time previously given. As the paper purporting to he a bill of exceptions was not signed within the time authorized by law, it cannot be considered by this court; and, there being no assignment of error relating to the record proper, the judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Tyson, C. J., and Dowdell and Simpson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 So. 450, 155 Ala. 272, 1908 Ala. LEXIS 267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broadus-cotton-mills-v-alston-gamble-ala-1908.