Crump v. Crump

69 Ala. 156
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided December 15, 1881·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

SOMEEYILLE, J.

The exceptions taken to the report of the register, in this case, are not in accordance with the requirement of the 93d Eule of Chancery Practice. This Eule exacts of the party filing such exceptions, that he should note at the foot of each exception to ’conclusions of fact, drawn by the register, the evidence, or parts of evidence, upon which he relies in support of the several exceptions, with such designations and marks of reference, as to direct the attention of the court to the same. Where an appellant has failed to comply with this [157] requirement, there is no error in the decree of a chancellor overruling his exceptions entirely. — Mooney v. Walter, ante p. 75.

Affirmed.

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

Crump v. Crump, 69 Ala. 156 (Ala. 1881).

69 Ala. 156 (Crump v. Crump) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ex Parte Cairns
96 So. 246 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1923)
McGuire v. Appling
47 So. 700 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1908)
State v. McBride
76 Ala. 51 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1884)