Decatur Land Co. v. City of New Decatur

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decatur Land Co. v. City of New Decatur

63 So. 1024, 184 Ala. 56, 1913 Ala. LEXIS 652

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedNovember 27, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 63 So. 1024 (Decatur Land Co. v. City of New Decatur) 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

Decatur Land Co. v. City of New Decatur, 63 So. 1024, 184 Ala. 56, 1913 Ala. LEXIS 652 (Ala. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

McCLELLAN, J.

— The single assignment of error is that the trial court erred in sustaining the appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal of the appellant, taken to the Morgan law and equity court from the action of the city council in respect of street improvement assessments. There is no bill of exceptions. There is, in consequence, no exception to the court’s action. The motion to dismiss the appeal was not enrolled by order of the court. Without a bill of exceptions, the motion not being enrolled, this court cannot revieAV the action of the court , below in sustaining the motion to dismiss the appeal to that court.- — Craig v. Etheredge, 133 Ala. 284, 32 South. 65; Ewing v. Wofford, 122 Ala. 439, 25 South. 251; Barton v. Gas Engine Co., 154 Ala. 275, 45 South. 213.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Dowdell, C. J., and Sayre and Somerville, JJ., concur.

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

McCLELLAN, J.

— The single assignment of error is that the trial court erred in sustaining the appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal of the appellant, taken to the Morgan law and equity court from the action of the city council in respect of street improvement assessments. There is no bill of exceptions. There is, in consequence, no exception to the court’s action. The motion to dismiss the appeal was not enrolled by order of the court. Without a bill of exceptions, the motion not being enrolled, this court cannot revieAV the action of the court , below in sustaining the motion to dismiss the appeal to that court.- — Craig v. Etheredge, 133 Ala. 284, 32 South. 65; Ewing v. Wofford, 122 Ala. 439, 25 South. 251; Barton v. Gas Engine Co., 154 Ala. 275, 45 South. 213.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Dowdell, C. J., and Sayre and Somerville, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 So. 1024, 184 Ala. 56, 1913 Ala. LEXIS 652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/decatur-land-co-v-city-of-new-decatur-ala-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack