Doe ex dem. School Commissioners v. Godwin

30 Ala. 242
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJanuary 15, 1857
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 30 Ala. 242 (Doe ex dem. School Commissioners v. Godwin) 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
Doe ex dem. School Commissioners v. Godwin, 30 Ala. 242 (Ala. 1857).

Opinion

STONE, J.

Under tbe act of 1837, it is provided that certificates of purchase, issued by school commissioners, and acknowledged according to its provisions, “shall operate as a title, upon condition only that tbe whole payments [of tbe purchase-money] shall be made.” — Olay’s Digest, 525, § 21. If tbe defendant below bad complied with tbe terms of tbis statute, be bad a good and valid defense.

It is argued here, that as tbe bill of exceptions does not inform us when tbe payment was made — whether before [244]*244or after tliis suit was brought — the charge of the court cannot be maintained. This would probably be the case, if we were authorized to presume the' bill of exceptions contains all the evidence. But there is nothing in the bill of exceptions to justify such presumption.

In the case of Barnes v. Mobley, 21 Ala. 238, our predecessors said, “It is impossible for this court to say that the circuit court erred, in charging the jury that, if they believed all the proof, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover; for the simple reason, that all the proof is not set out in the bill of exceptions.”

The following propositions may be regarded as settled definitively in this court:

1. That bills of exceptions are to be construed most strongly against the exceptor.

2. That error will not be presumed, but must be affirmatively shown.

3. That when an affirmative charge is given, which is correct as an abstract legal proposition, this court will presume there was evidence to justify the charge, unless it affirmatively appear to the contrary. — Morris v. The State, 25 Ala. 57; McElhaney v. The State, 24 Ala. 71; Gaines v. Harvin, 19 Ala. 491; Bryan v. Ware, 20 Ala. 687; Sammis v. Johnson, 22 Ala. 690; Furlow v. Merrill, 23 Ala. 705.

We feel bound to presume, in lavor of the correctness of the charge of the circuit court, that there was evidence to justify it.

The judgment is affirmed.

Bice, C. J., not sitting.

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

Related

Federal Intermediate Credit Bank v. Faulk
154 So. 606 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1934)
Nix v. Scharnagel
105 So. 183 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1925)
State v. Alabama Land & Mineral Co.
97 So. 539 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1923)
Beard v. DuBose
57 So. 703 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1912)
Bickley v. Sherrod
57 So. 1013 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1912)
Baker v. Patterson
55 So. 135 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1911)
Donaldson v. Wilkerson
54 So. 234 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1910)
Seymour v. Creswell
18 Fla. 29 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1881)
Childs v. State
58 Ala. 349 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1877)
Griffin v. Bland
43 Ala. 542 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1869)
Kirksey v. Hardaway
41 Ala. 330 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1867)
Bridges v. Cribbs
41 Ala. 367 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1867)
Martin v. State
39 Ala. 523 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1865)
Ex parte Harlan
39 Ala. 563 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1865)
Fickling v. Brewer
38 Ala. 685 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1863)
Roundtree v. Snodgrass
36 Ala. 185 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1860)
Nesbitt v. Pearson's Adm'rs
33 Ala. 668 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1859)
Henderson v. Renfro
31 Ala. 101 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1857)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 Ala. 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doe-ex-dem-school-commissioners-v-godwin-ala-1857.