Emmett v. Farrow

Supreme Court of Alabama

Emmett v. Farrow

136 Ala. 512

DecidedNovember 15, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 136 Ala. 512 (Emmett v. Farrow) 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

Emmett v. Farrow, 136 Ala. 512 (Ala. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

SHARPE, J.

This cause was tried at an adjourned term of the circuit court which at the regular term was ordered to be begun on April 23d, 1900, and to be held for two weeks. The judgment entry bears date May 4th,. 1900, and therein appears an order allowing ninety days for the presentation and signing of a bill of exceptions. Other than that the transcript does not disclose any order or agreement extending time for such signing. That which is set out in the transcript as a bill "of exceptions appears to .have been signed on the 28th day of August, 1900. It cannot be treated as a bill of excep[514]*514tions because the signing does not affirmatively appear to have been within the time legally allowed therefor. The recital in the supposed bill of exceptions that the signing' “is done within the time heretofore allowe therefor,” not being sustained by any order or agreement in the transcript, is not effective to establish that the signing was in fact had in due time. — Dantzler v. Swift Creek Mill Co., 128 Ala. 410; Anniston Elec. & Gas Co. v. Cooper, 34 So. Rep. 931.

Nothing on the record proper having been assigned as error, the judgment will be affirmed.

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

SHARPE, J.

This cause was tried at an adjourned term of the circuit court which at the regular term was ordered to be begun on April 23d, 1900, and to be held for two weeks. The judgment entry bears date May 4th,. 1900, and therein appears an order allowing ninety days for the presentation and signing of a bill of exceptions. Other than that the transcript does not disclose any order or agreement extending time for such signing. That which is set out in the transcript as a bill "of exceptions appears to .have been signed on the 28th day of August, 1900. It cannot be treated as a bill of excep[514]*514tions because the signing does not affirmatively appear to have been within the time legally allowed therefor. The recital in the supposed bill of exceptions that the signing' “is done within the time heretofore allowe therefor,” not being sustained by any order or agreement in the transcript, is not effective to establish that the signing was in fact had in due time. — Dantzler v. Swift Creek Mill Co., 128 Ala. 410; Anniston Elec. & Gas Co. v. Cooper, 34 So. Rep. 931.

Nothing on the record proper having been assigned as error, the judgment will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 Ala. 512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emmett-v-farrow-ala-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack