Ex Parte Hill

Supreme Court of Alabama

Ex Parte Hill

89 So. 58, 205 Ala. 631, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 570

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedFebruary 10, 1921

Docket6 Div. 203.

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 89 So. 58 (Ex Parte Hill) 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

Ex Parte Hill, 89 So. 58, 205 Ala. 631, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 570 (Ala. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

SOMERVILLE, J.

[1] Section 3019 of the Code is mandatory in its requirement that bills of exceptions must, if correct, be signed by the trial judge within 90 days after the date of presentation; and bills not so signed must he stricken on proper and seasonable motion. Baker v. C. of G. Ry. Co., 165 Ala. 466, 51 South. 796; Buck Creek Lbr. Co. v. Nelson, 188 Ala. 243, 66 South. 476; Deason v. Gray, 189 Ala. 672, 66 South. 646; Sellers v. Dickert, 194 Ala. 661, 69 South. 604; T. C. I. & R. R. Co. v. Perry, 10 Ala. App. 371, 65 South. 91.

[2] Section 3020 of the Code is restrictive, and not enabling, and its only purpose and effect is to prevent the appellate court from striking bills not signed within the time prescribed by law, ex mero motu, as was formerly the practice. It does not change the mandatory character of the provisions of section 3019, nor arm the appellate court with any discretion with respect to the granting of a motion properly made and seasonably invoking the mandatory rule of the statute. Baker v. C. of G. Ry. Co., 165 Ala. 466, 469, 51 South. 796; Box v. So. Ry. Co., 184 Ala. 598, 600, 64 South. 69.

When the bill has not in fact been signed *632 within the time prescribed', the appellate court will not inquire into the reasons for or the circumstances of the failure of the trial judge to sign, but must remit the proponent of the bill to the remedy provided by law for such cases. Act Sept. 25, 1915 (Gen. Acts 1915, p. 816), amending § 3022, Code 1907. See Haden v. Brown, 22 Ala. 572.

The action of the Court ■ of Appeals in striking -the bill of exceptions in this case on the seasonable motion of counsel for the state was in accordance with the law as we have stated it, and the petition for the writ of certiorari to review that action must be denied.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. T., and MeCLELLAN and THOMAS, IT., concur.

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

SOMERVILLE, J.

[1] Section 3019 of the Code is mandatory in its requirement that bills of exceptions must, if correct, be signed by the trial judge within 90 days after the date of presentation; and bills not so signed must he stricken on proper and seasonable motion. Baker v. C. of G. Ry. Co., 165 Ala. 466, 51 South. 796; Buck Creek Lbr. Co. v. Nelson, 188 Ala. 243, 66 South. 476; Deason v. Gray, 189 Ala. 672, 66 South. 646; Sellers v. Dickert, 194 Ala. 661, 69 South. 604; T. C. I. & R. R. Co. v. Perry, 10 Ala. App. 371, 65 South. 91.

[2] Section 3020 of the Code is restrictive, and not enabling, and its only purpose and effect is to prevent the appellate court from striking bills not signed within the time prescribed by law, ex mero motu, as was formerly the practice. It does not change the mandatory character of the provisions of section 3019, nor arm the appellate court with any discretion with respect to the granting of a motion properly made and seasonably invoking the mandatory rule of the statute. Baker v. C. of G. Ry. Co., 165 Ala. 466, 469, 51 South. 796; Box v. So. Ry. Co., 184 Ala. 598, 600, 64 South. 69.

When the bill has not in fact been signed *632 within the time prescribed', the appellate court will not inquire into the reasons for or the circumstances of the failure of the trial judge to sign, but must remit the proponent of the bill to the remedy provided by law for such cases. Act Sept. 25, 1915 (Gen. Acts 1915, p. 816), amending § 3022, Code 1907. See Haden v. Brown, 22 Ala. 572.

The action of the Court ■ of Appeals in striking -the bill of exceptions in this case on the seasonable motion of counsel for the state was in accordance with the law as we have stated it, and the petition for the writ of certiorari to review that action must be denied.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. T., and MeCLELLAN and THOMAS, IT., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 So. 58, 205 Ala. 631, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-hill-ala-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack