Dorrough v. MacKenson

Alabama Court of Appeals

Dorrough v. MacKenson

157 So. 917, 26 Ala. App. 636

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 27, 1934

Docket6 Div. 563.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 157 So. 917 (Dorrough v. MacKenson) 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

Dorrough v. MacKenson, 157 So. 917, 26 Ala. App. 636 (Ala. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, Judge.

The brief filed here on behalf of appellant, there being none filed for appellee, is constructed in total disregard of rules 10 and 12 of Supreme Court practice (pages 882 and 883, Code 1923, vol. 4).

While the disposition of the appellate courts of our state seems to be to condone this fault where it can be done without practically abrogating the said rules (Brothers v. Brothers, 208 Ala. 258, 94 So. 175; Griffin Burial Ass’n v. Snead, 25 Ala. App. 543, 149 So. 875), yet, so far as we are advised, the holding delineated by Mr. Justice Gardner for the Supreme Court in the opinion in the case of Ogburn-Griffin Grocery Co. v. Orient Insurance Co., 188 Ala. 218, 66 So. 434, still stands for our guidance (Code 1923, § 7318).

This holding was set forth specifically and at length by us in the opinion in the case of Lester v. Enzor, 24 Ala. App. 318, 134 So. 819. We will not again quote it here.

*637 Upon the authority of what we said in the Lester y. Enzor opinion (24 Ala. App. 318, 134 So. 819), the judgment here appealed from stands affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

RICE, Judge.

The brief filed here on behalf of appellant, there being none filed for appellee, is constructed in total disregard of rules 10 and 12 of Supreme Court practice (pages 882 and 883, Code 1923, vol. 4).

While the disposition of the appellate courts of our state seems to be to condone this fault where it can be done without practically abrogating the said rules (Brothers v. Brothers, 208 Ala. 258, 94 So. 175; Griffin Burial Ass’n v. Snead, 25 Ala. App. 543, 149 So. 875), yet, so far as we are advised, the holding delineated by Mr. Justice Gardner for the Supreme Court in the opinion in the case of Ogburn-Griffin Grocery Co. v. Orient Insurance Co., 188 Ala. 218, 66 So. 434, still stands for our guidance (Code 1923, § 7318).

This holding was set forth specifically and at length by us in the opinion in the case of Lester v. Enzor, 24 Ala. App. 318, 134 So. 819. We will not again quote it here.

*637 Upon the authority of what we said in the Lester y. Enzor opinion (24 Ala. App. 318, 134 So. 819), the judgment here appealed from stands affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 So. 917, 26 Ala. App. 636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorrough-v-mackenson-alactapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack