Crim v. Gilbert
104 So. 2d 632, 267 Ala. 665, 1958 Ala. LEXIS 414
Opinion
There being no assignment of error “bound with the transcript,” an order of affirmance is due to be entered; and it is so ordered. Code 1940, Tit. 7, Appendix, Rule 1, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court; Wetzel v. Hobbs, 249 Ala. 434, 31 So.2d 639; Halle v. Brooks, 209 Ala. 486, 96 So. 341; Nichols v. Hardegree, 202 Ala. 132, 79 So. 598; Dobson v. Deason, 258 Ala. 219, 61 So.2d 764; 2 Ala.Dig., Appeal and Error, ^753(2).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Crim v. Gilbert, 104 So. 2d 632, 267 Ala. 665, 1958 Ala. LEXIS 414 (Ala. 1958).
104 So. 2d 632 (Crim v. Gilbert) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Starnes v. Brassell
241 So. 2d 109 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1970)
Thompson v. City of Florence
130 So. 2d 350 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1961)
Erwin v. Erwin
114 So. 2d 918 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1959)