Harris v. Alston

Supreme Court of Alabama

Harris v. Alston

116 So. 116, 217 Ala. 414, 1928 Ala. LEXIS 451

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMarch 22, 1928

Docket6 Div. 95.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 116 So. 116 (Harris v. Alston) 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

Harris v. Alston, 116 So. 116, 217 Ala. 414, 1928 Ala. LEXIS 451 (Ala. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

ANDERSON, C. J.

The bill of exceptions was presented to the presiding judge of the Coiirt of Appeals, who approved and established same, supposedly acting under section 6436 of the Code of 1923. Said section au *415 thorizes the establishment of a bill of exceptions by a- justice of the Supreme Court or a judge of the Court of Appeals when the trial judge dies, resigns, is removed from office, or from sickness or absence from the state or county cannot or is unable to accept a presentation. If, as in this case, the trial judge is accessible and the bill is in fact presented to him and he refuses or fails to approve the same, the appellant must proceed to establish the same in the Appellate Court as provided by section 6435 of the Code. It was expressly held in the case of Sovereign Camp, W. O. W., v. Ward, 200 Ala. 19, 75 So. 331, that the act of 1915 (page 816), now codified as a part of section 6436, did not change or alter section 6435, that there was a field of operation for both sections, and that in cases where the trial judge failed or refused to approve the bill of exceptions because he did not deem it correct, it must be established in the Appellate Court under section 6435 and not before a justice or judge of the Appellate Court. The record in this case shows that the bill of exceptions was presented or turned over to Judge Foster, the trial judge, in due time, and he declined to approve same because he did not deem it correct. Whether certain changes or corrections 'were or were not made at the instance of the appellee’s counsel before the bill was established by the presiding judge of the Court of Appeals matters not, as the record shows that said counsel did appear and objected and excepted to the establishment of said bill of exceptions. Moreover, it is at least questionable if this court should not strike the same mero motu because not established or approved as authorized by law, as section 6434 forbids striking same, except upon motion only when the same was not presented or signed within time, and does not apply to one not approved by the proper authority. The motion to strike the bill of exceptions is sustained, and, as there is no assignment of error based upon any ruling disclosed in the record proper, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

SAYRE, GARDNER, and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.

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

ANDERSON, C. J.

The bill of exceptions was presented to the presiding judge of the Coiirt of Appeals, who approved and established same, supposedly acting under section 6436 of the Code of 1923. Said section au *415 thorizes the establishment of a bill of exceptions by a- justice of the Supreme Court or a judge of the Court of Appeals when the trial judge dies, resigns, is removed from office, or from sickness or absence from the state or county cannot or is unable to accept a presentation. If, as in this case, the trial judge is accessible and the bill is in fact presented to him and he refuses or fails to approve the same, the appellant must proceed to establish the same in the Appellate Court as provided by section 6435 of the Code. It was expressly held in the case of Sovereign Camp, W. O. W., v. Ward, 200 Ala. 19, 75 So. 331, that the act of 1915 (page 816), now codified as a part of section 6436, did not change or alter section 6435, that there was a field of operation for both sections, and that in cases where the trial judge failed or refused to approve the bill of exceptions because he did not deem it correct, it must be established in the Appellate Court under section 6435 and not before a justice or judge of the Appellate Court. The record in this case shows that the bill of exceptions was presented or turned over to Judge Foster, the trial judge, in due time, and he declined to approve same because he did not deem it correct. Whether certain changes or corrections 'were or were not made at the instance of the appellee’s counsel before the bill was established by the presiding judge of the Court of Appeals matters not, as the record shows that said counsel did appear and objected and excepted to the establishment of said bill of exceptions. Moreover, it is at least questionable if this court should not strike the same mero motu because not established or approved as authorized by law, as section 6434 forbids striking same, except upon motion only when the same was not presented or signed within time, and does not apply to one not approved by the proper authority. The motion to strike the bill of exceptions is sustained, and, as there is no assignment of error based upon any ruling disclosed in the record proper, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

SAYRE, GARDNER, and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 So. 116, 217 Ala. 414, 1928 Ala. LEXIS 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-alston-ala-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack