Hogg v. Jenifer Iron Co.

112 So. 207, 215 Ala. 683, 1927 Ala. LEXIS 619
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedMarch 24, 1927
Docket6 Div. 696.
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 112 So. 207 (Hogg v. Jenifer Iron Co.) 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
Hogg v. Jenifer Iron Co., 112 So. 207, 215 Ala. 683, 1927 Ala. LEXIS 619 (Ala. 1927).

Opinion

BROWN, J.

This appeal is from the final decree rendered on a submission of the cause on the pleading and proof, and is here submitted without suggestion of a diminution of the record, or motion for certiorari to perfect it, under rule 19 of Supreme Court Practice (Code 1923, vol. 4, p. 885).

It is conceded by the appellant that the record is incomplete in that a part of the testimony — that given orally in the presence of the trial court and taken in shorthand by the court reporter — embraced in the submission, is omitted from the record. We find appended to the record a petition praying for mandamus or other appropriate writ, to be directed to the trial court or its officers, to compel transcription of the oral testimony and certification of the same, as a part of the record, but there is no submission on this petition, nor was it called to the court’s attention at the time of the submission.

The rule of practice, 19, supra, provides the parties, on the suggestion of a diminution of the record and motion for certiorari, a remedy to perfect the record, and it was the duty of the appellant, before submitting his case, to pursue this remedy; but, having submitted the case without doing so, the court has no other alternative than to dispose of the case on the record. as it now stands;

The record shows no rulings on the demurrers to the bill, nor on the motions made the basis of the assignments of error, and, it appearing that the record does not contain all of the testimony upon which the case was submitted to the trial court, we cannot review the finding on the facts.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. J., and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Eaton v. Shene
212 So. 2d 596 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1968)
Welch v. State
123 So. 2d 205 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1960)
Bowlin v. Bowlin
104 So. 2d 630 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1958)
Ruck v. Ruck
89 So. 2d 274 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1956)
Williams v. Schaeffer
80 So. 2d 722 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1955)
Gossett v. Pratt
34 So. 2d 145 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1947)
McGriff v. McGriff
4 So. 2d 507 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1941)
Allen v. Allen
135 So. 169 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
112 So. 207, 215 Ala. 683, 1927 Ala. LEXIS 619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hogg-v-jenifer-iron-co-ala-1927.