Hester v. Cantrell
53 So. 1009, 169 Ala. 490, 1910 Ala. LEXIS 231
Opinion
The bill of exceptions expressly purports to he, as it is, nothing other than the steno[491]*491graphic report of the trial below. It is, hence, constructed. in patent violation of rule 32 of circuit court practice (Civ. Code 1907, p. 1526). It will be stricken. —Gassenheimer & Co. v. Marietta Co., 127 Ala. 183, 28 South. 564; Sou. Ry. Co. v. Jackson, 133 Ala. 384, 31 South. 988; Woodward Iron Co. v. Herndon, 130 Ala. 364, 375, 376, 30 South. 370.
There is no error assigned as upon the record proper, so the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hester v. Cantrell, 53 So. 1009, 169 Ala. 490, 1910 Ala. LEXIS 231 (Ala. 1910).
53 So. 1009 (Hester v. Cantrell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Collins v. Vaughn Realty Co.
117 So. 55 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1928)
J. H. Arnold & Co. v. Pinckard & Lay
80 So. 164 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1918)
Turner v. Thornton
68 So. 813 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1915)
Clancy v. Taylor
68 So. 522 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1915)
Owens v. State
66 So. 852 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1914)
Higdon v. Warrant Warehouse Co.
63 So. 938 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1913)
Irby v. Kaigler
60 So. 418 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1912)
Lucas v. Mays
56 So. 593 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1911)