Erwin v. Erwin
114 So. 2d 918, 269 Ala. 632, 1959 Ala. LEXIS 566
Opinion
There being no assignment of error “bound with the transcript,” an order of affirmance is due to be entered, and it is so ordered. Supreme Court Rule 1, Code 1940, Tit. 7 Appendix; Crim v. Gilbert, 267 Ala. 665, 104 So.2d 632; Southern Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Holmes, 265 Ala. 48, 89 So.2d 530; Stidham v. Stidham, 264 Ala. 195, 86 So.2d 294; Patterson v. Gains, 264 Ala. 183, 85 So.2d 892; Wetzel v. Hobbs, 249 Ala. 434, 31 So.2d 639, and Nichols v. Hardegree, 202 Ala. 132, 79 So. 598.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Erwin v. Erwin, 114 So. 2d 918, 269 Ala. 632, 1959 Ala. LEXIS 566 (Ala. 1959).
114 So. 2d 918 (Erwin v. Erwin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Watson v. City of Dothan
196 So. 2d 869 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1966)
Morris v. Morris
177 So. 2d 324 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1965)
Trussell v. Ripps
168 So. 2d 619 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1964)
Hemphill v. State
134 So. 2d 432 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1961)
Thompson v. City of Florence
130 So. 2d 350 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1961)