Elliott v. Davis

Alabama Court of Appeals

Elliott v. Davis

81 So. 139, 16 Ala. App. 647, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 5

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 21, 1919

Docket6 Div. 467.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 81 So. 139 (Elliott v. Davis) 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

Elliott v. Davis, 81 So. 139, 16 Ala. App. 647, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 5 (Ala. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

[1, 2] It is not necessary to a decision of this case to pass upon the numerous . Questions argued in brief. It does not appear from the record in this case that an exception was reserved to the ruling of the trial court on the motion for a new trial, which has been held to be necessary, and which, together with the evidence and the ruling of the trial court on the motion, should be incorporated in the bill of exceptions. Britton v. State, 15 Ala. App. 584, 74 South. 721; Empire Clothing Co. v. Roberts, Johnson Rand Shoe Co., ante, p. 86, 75 South. 635; King v. State, ante, p. 103, 75 South. 692; Ross v. State, ante, p. 393, 78 South. 309; Powell v. Folmar, 201 Ala. 271, 78 South. 47. For the above reason, the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

[1, 2] It is not necessary to a decision of this case to pass upon the numerous . Questions argued in brief. It does not appear from the record in this case that an exception was reserved to the ruling of the trial court on the motion for a new trial, which has been held to be necessary, and which, together with the evidence and the ruling of the trial court on the motion, should be incorporated in the bill of exceptions. Britton v. State, 15 Ala. App. 584, 74 South. 721; Empire Clothing Co. v. Roberts, Johnson Rand Shoe Co., ante, p. 86, 75 South. 635; King v. State, ante, p. 103, 75 South. 692; Ross v. State, ante, p. 393, 78 South. 309; Powell v. Folmar, 201 Ala. 271, 78 South. 47. For the above reason, the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 So. 139, 16 Ala. App. 647, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliott-v-davis-alactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack