Carbon Hill & Lost Creek Coal Co. v. Cooper & Son

Alabama Court of Appeals

Carbon Hill & Lost Creek Coal Co. v. Cooper & Son

57 So. 81, 3 Ala. App. 460, 1911 Ala. App. LEXIS 161

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 28, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 57 So. 81 (Carbon Hill & Lost Creek Coal Co. v. Cooper & Son) 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

Carbon Hill & Lost Creek Coal Co. v. Cooper & Son, 57 So. 81, 3 Ala. App. 460, 1911 Ala. App. LEXIS 161 (Ala. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

WALKER, P. J.

For anything that appears in the bill of exceptions, the statement of the witness A. B. Ray in reference to paying Jim Lee for checks issued by Mr. Bynon may haye been in response to a question or questions calling for a statement on that subject, to which no objection was interposed by the defendant. If so, the defendant was not entitled to have the responsive answer of the witness excluded on motion. It could not, by failing to object to the question, speculate on the answer the witness would make, and then be entitled to have the answer excluded.

The other assignments of error must be regarded as haying been waived, as the counsel for the appellant in his brief merely mentions them, and asserts in general terms that the rulings complained of were erroneous. An appellate court is not in this way to have the burden cast upon it of undertaking an unassisted search for errors in the record.—Fitts v. Phoenix Auction Co., 153 Ala. 635, 45 South. 150; Pearson v. Adams, 129 Ala. 157, 29 South. 977; Harper v. Raisin Fertilizer Co., 148 Ala. 360, 42 South. 550; Hodge et al v. Rambo, 155 Ala. 175, 45 South. 678.

Affirmed.

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

WALKER, P. J.

For anything that appears in the bill of exceptions, the statement of the witness A. B. Ray in reference to paying Jim Lee for checks issued by Mr. Bynon may haye been in response to a question or questions calling for a statement on that subject, to which no objection was interposed by the defendant. If so, the defendant was not entitled to have the responsive answer of the witness excluded on motion. It could not, by failing to object to the question, speculate on the answer the witness would make, and then be entitled to have the answer excluded.

The other assignments of error must be regarded as haying been waived, as the counsel for the appellant in his brief merely mentions them, and asserts in general terms that the rulings complained of were erroneous. An appellate court is not in this way to have the burden cast upon it of undertaking an unassisted search for errors in the record.—Fitts v. Phoenix Auction Co., 153 Ala. 635, 45 South. 150; Pearson v. Adams, 129 Ala. 157, 29 South. 977; Harper v. Raisin Fertilizer Co., 148 Ala. 360, 42 South. 550; Hodge et al v. Rambo, 155 Ala. 175, 45 South. 678.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 So. 81, 3 Ala. App. 460, 1911 Ala. App. LEXIS 161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carbon-hill-lost-creek-coal-co-v-cooper-son-alactapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack