Graham v. Wall

Alabama Court of Appeals

Graham v. Wall

77 So. 421, 16 Ala. App. 271, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 309

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 18, 1917

Docket5 Div. 217.

StatusPublished

This text of 77 So. 421 (Graham v. Wall) 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

Graham v. Wall, 77 So. 421, 16 Ala. App. 271, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 309 (Ala. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

Counsel for appellee call our attention to the fact that the record shows the bill of exceptions not to have been presented to the trial judge within 90 days from the date of judgment. It appears from the record that the judgment was rendered on December 2, 1915, and the bill of exceptions presented to the trial judge March 9, 1916. Under the decisions of both this and the Supreme Court, the presentation and indorsement in question is mandatory (Code 1907, § 3019), without which there is in fact no, bill of exceptions (Box et al. v. Southern Railway Co., 184 Ala. 599, 64 South. 69; Smith v. State, 166 Ala. 26, 52 South. 396). It was held in the Box Case, supra, that such facts are jurisdictional. Where, therefore, it appears that the bill of exceptions as set out in the record was not presented and signed within the time prescribed by the statute, this court' cannot consider the assignments of error presented by the pseudo bill. Authorities, supra.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

Counsel for appellee call our attention to the fact that the record shows the bill of exceptions not to have been presented to the trial judge within 90 days from the date of judgment. It appears from the record that the judgment was rendered on December 2, 1915, and the bill of exceptions presented to the trial judge March 9, 1916. Under the decisions of both this and the Supreme Court, the presentation and indorsement in question is mandatory (Code 1907, § 3019), without which there is in fact no, bill of exceptions (Box et al. v. Southern Railway Co., 184 Ala. 599, 64 South. 69; Smith v. State, 166 Ala. 26, 52 South. 396). It was held in the Box Case, supra, that such facts are jurisdictional. Where, therefore, it appears that the bill of exceptions as set out in the record was not presented and signed within the time prescribed by the statute, this court' cannot consider the assignments of error presented by the pseudo bill. Authorities, supra.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 So. 421, 16 Ala. App. 271, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-v-wall-alactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack