Hambrick v. Hambrick

Supreme Court of Alabama

Hambrick v. Hambrick

108 So. 2d 165, 268 Ala. 427, 1959 Ala. LEXIS 341

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 8, 1959

Docket6 Div. 354

StatusPublished

This text of 108 So. 2d 165 (Hambrick v. Hambrick) 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

Hambrick v. Hambrick, 108 So. 2d 165, 268 Ala. 427, 1959 Ala. LEXIS 341 (Ala. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

GOODWYN, Justice.

This is an appeal by the respondent below from a decree of the law and equity court of Winston County, in equity, overruling her demurrer to a bill for divorce. We have no alternative but to affirm the decree for the reason that there is no assignment of error made in accordance with Rule 1 of the Revised Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 261 Ala. XIX, XX, Code 1940, Tit. 7 Appendix, Cum.Pock. Part. Southern Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Holmes, 265 Ala. 48, 49, 89 So.2d 530; Tidwell v. Town of Town Creek, 264 Ala. 330, 87 So.2d 646; Dobson v. Deason, 258 Ala. 219, 61 So.2d 764.

We call attention to the fact that the transcript does not contain the caption required by Rule 24 of the Revised Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, supra. See: Prince v. Hammock, 265 Ala. 255, 90 So.2d 672; Glenn v. Sutton, 265 Ala. 154, 90 So.2d 227; Powell v. Powell, 265 Ala. 48, 89 So.2d 530; West v. Camp, 264 Ala. 644, 89 So.2d 170; Reynolds v. Henson, 264 Ala. 435, 87 So.2d 856; McPherson v. Stallworth, 262 Ala. 367, 368, 78 So.2d 924; Garrard v. State ex rel. Waid, 260 Ala. 486, 487, 71 So.2d 59; Pensacola, A. & W. R. Co. v. Big Sandy Iron Co., 147 Ala. 274, 41 So. 418.

Affirmed.

LAWSON, STAKELY and MERRILL, JJ., concur.

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

GOODWYN, Justice.

This is an appeal by the respondent below from a decree of the law and equity court of Winston County, in equity, overruling her demurrer to a bill for divorce. We have no alternative but to affirm the decree for the reason that there is no assignment of error made in accordance with Rule 1 of the Revised Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 261 Ala. XIX, XX, Code 1940, Tit. 7 Appendix, Cum.Pock. Part. Southern Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Holmes, 265 Ala. 48, 49, 89 So.2d 530; Tidwell v. Town of Town Creek, 264 Ala. 330, 87 So.2d 646; Dobson v. Deason, 258 Ala. 219, 61 So.2d 764.

We call attention to the fact that the transcript does not contain the caption required by Rule 24 of the Revised Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, supra. See: Prince v. Hammock, 265 Ala. 255, 90 So.2d 672; Glenn v. Sutton, 265 Ala. 154, 90 So.2d 227; Powell v. Powell, 265 Ala. 48, 89 So.2d 530; West v. Camp, 264 Ala. 644, 89 So.2d 170; Reynolds v. Henson, 264 Ala. 435, 87 So.2d 856; McPherson v. Stallworth, 262 Ala. 367, 368, 78 So.2d 924; Garrard v. State ex rel. Waid, 260 Ala. 486, 487, 71 So.2d 59; Pensacola, A. & W. R. Co. v. Big Sandy Iron Co., 147 Ala. 274, 41 So. 418.

Affirmed.

LAWSON, STAKELY and MERRILL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 So. 2d 165, 268 Ala. 427, 1959 Ala. LEXIS 341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hambrick-v-hambrick-ala-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack