Davis v. City of Guntersville

Alabama Court of Appeals

Davis v. City of Guntersville

169 So. 222, 27 Ala. App. 208, 1936 Ala. App. LEXIS 117

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 16, 1936

Docket8 Div. 172.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 169 So. 222 (Davis v. City of Guntersville) 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

Davis v. City of Guntersville, 169 So. 222, 27 Ala. App. 208, 1936 Ala. App. LEXIS 117 (Ala. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

The prosecution in this case originated in the mayor’s court of the city of Guntersville, wherein this appellant was charged with the offense of assault and battery upon Jerry D. Davidson in violation of a certain ordinance of said city. The trial resulted in his conviction, whereupon he appealed to the circuit court in which court the trial was had without a jury. He was again convicted, and from the judgment of conviction this appeal was-taken.

As this appeal is here presented, the-points of decision involved are not re *209 viewable. Prosecutions of this character, that is to say, under municipal -ordinances, are quasi criminal, and on appeal to the courts of last resort are subject to rules governing civil cases on appeal. It is necessary to assign errors, and to be reviewable such assignments must be followed up by argument in brief. The law is well settled as to this. Peever v. City of Com’rs of Florence, 229 Ala. 351, 157 So. 79, and cases cited.

Noncompliance with this mandatory requirement necessitates an affirmance of the judgment pronounced and entered in the circuit court, from which this appeal was taken. It is so ordered.

Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

The prosecution in this case originated in the mayor’s court of the city of Guntersville, wherein this appellant was charged with the offense of assault and battery upon Jerry D. Davidson in violation of a certain ordinance of said city. The trial resulted in his conviction, whereupon he appealed to the circuit court in which court the trial was had without a jury. He was again convicted, and from the judgment of conviction this appeal was-taken.

As this appeal is here presented, the-points of decision involved are not re *209 viewable. Prosecutions of this character, that is to say, under municipal -ordinances, are quasi criminal, and on appeal to the courts of last resort are subject to rules governing civil cases on appeal. It is necessary to assign errors, and to be reviewable such assignments must be followed up by argument in brief. The law is well settled as to this. Peever v. City of Com’rs of Florence, 229 Ala. 351, 157 So. 79, and cases cited.

Noncompliance with this mandatory requirement necessitates an affirmance of the judgment pronounced and entered in the circuit court, from which this appeal was taken. It is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 So. 222, 27 Ala. App. 208, 1936 Ala. App. LEXIS 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-city-of-guntersville-alactapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack