Ex Parte Rials

101 So. 630, 211 Ala. 615, 1924 Ala. LEXIS 375
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided October 6, 1924·No. 4 Div. 172.·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

*616 SOMERVILLE, J.

The petitioner seeks to review a ruling o£ the Court of Appeals refusing to review the action of the trial court in overruling petitioner’s motion for a new trial

The motion in question, the decision of the trial court thereon, and the exception of the defendant thereto, appear in the minute entry incorporated in the record proper. The bill of exceptions fails to show that any exception was taken to the action of the trial court, and this omission is fatal to the right to review. Akin v. Chancy Bros., 207 Ala. 523, 93 So. 408, and cases therein cited.

The Court of Appeals did not err in denying the review sought, and the petition for the writ of certiorari will be denied.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.

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

Ex Parte Rials, 101 So. 630, 211 Ala. 615, 1924 Ala. LEXIS 375 (Ala. 1924).

101 So. 630 (Ex Parte Rials) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kyzer v. State
2 So. 2d 338 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1941)
Blair v. State
187 So. 645 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1939)
Mickle v. State
148 So. 319 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1933)
State v. Archibald
215 N.W. 258 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1927)
Chambers v. Maxwell
107 So. 806 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1926)