Hollingsworth v. Chapman

Supreme Court of Alabama

Hollingsworth v. Chapman

54 Ala. 7

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedDecember 15, 1875

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 54 Ala. 7 (Hollingsworth v. Chapman) 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

Hollingsworth v. Chapman, 54 Ala. 7 (Ala. 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

GEO. W. STONE, Special Judge.

The record in this cause fails to inform us that the charges refused, and severally-excepted to, were asked in writing. The Revised Code, section 2756, declares that “charges asked for by either party must be in writing.” In Myatt & Moore v. Bell, 41 Ala. 222, this court, speaking of this precise question, held that “ the charge will be presumed to have been in writing, where no objection appears to have been taken to it in the court below.” In that case, the judgment of the primary court was reversed, for the refusal of the court to give a charge, which the record failed to affirm was in writing.

In the later cases of Crosby v. Hutchinson, 53 Ala. p. 5, and McKeithen v. D. Pratt & Co., ib. p. 116, this court departed from and, in effect, overruled Myatt v. Bell, supra, and returned to the sounder doctrine that all reasonable intendments will be indulged by this court in favor of the correct ruling of the court below.

Following these later decisions, there is no question presented by the charges of the court, which we can consider as a ground of reversal.

The insertion in the bill of exceptions of the general charge of the court, to which no exceptions were taken, cannot possibly injure the appellant. It furnishes no ground for reversal.—Grace v. McKissack, 49 Ala. 163.

Affirmed.

Chief Justice Brickedl, having been of counsel, not sitting.

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

GEO. W. STONE, Special Judge.

The record in this cause fails to inform us that the charges refused, and severally-excepted to, were asked in writing. The Revised Code, section 2756, declares that “charges asked for by either party must be in writing.” In Myatt & Moore v. Bell, 41 Ala. 222, this court, speaking of this precise question, held that “ the charge will be presumed to have been in writing, where no objection appears to have been taken to it in the court below.” In that case, the judgment of the primary court was reversed, for the refusal of the court to give a charge, which the record failed to affirm was in writing.

In the later cases of Crosby v. Hutchinson, 53 Ala. p. 5, and McKeithen v. D. Pratt & Co., ib. p. 116, this court departed from and, in effect, overruled Myatt v. Bell, supra, and returned to the sounder doctrine that all reasonable intendments will be indulged by this court in favor of the correct ruling of the court below.

Following these later decisions, there is no question presented by the charges of the court, which we can consider as a ground of reversal.

The insertion in the bill of exceptions of the general charge of the court, to which no exceptions were taken, cannot possibly injure the appellant. It furnishes no ground for reversal.—Grace v. McKissack, 49 Ala. 163.

Affirmed.

Chief Justice Brickedl, having been of counsel, not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 Ala. 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hollingsworth-v-chapman-ala-1875.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack