Hudson v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Hudson v. State

9 So. 2d 757, 30 Ala. App. 509, 1942 Ala. App. LEXIS 101

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 7, 1942

Docket4 Div. 722.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 9 So. 2d 757 (Hudson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hudson v. State, 9 So. 2d 757, 30 Ala. App. 509, 1942 Ala. App. LEXIS 101 (Ala. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

SIMPSON, Judge.

The State files its motion to strike the bill of exceptions.

It appears from the record, as here presented, that the "bill of exceptions was not signed and approved by the trial judge within sixty days after its filing, as prescribed in the statute. The motion of the State is, therefore, granted and the bill of exceptions is stricken.

It may be well to observe that the statute regulating the presentment and signing of bills of exceptions now provides that a bill of exceptions must be filed in the- office of the clerk of the trial court within the prescribed time; and the party filing the bill must furnish to the adverse party, or his attorney, a copy thereof, and must endorse on the original a certificate to that effect over his signature. Code 1940, Title 7, Section 822. There was non-compliance, also, with the last-mentioned requisite as to furnishing the adverse party, or his attorney, with a copy of the bill.

The bill of exceptions having been stricken and the record proper appearing to be regular in every respect, the judgment is ordered affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SIMPSON, Judge.

The State files its motion to strike the bill of exceptions.

It appears from the record, as here presented, that the "bill of exceptions was not signed and approved by the trial judge within sixty days after its filing, as prescribed in the statute. The motion of the State is, therefore, granted and the bill of exceptions is stricken.

It may be well to observe that the statute regulating the presentment and signing of bills of exceptions now provides that a bill of exceptions must be filed in the- office of the clerk of the trial court within the prescribed time; and the party filing the bill must furnish to the adverse party, or his attorney, a copy thereof, and must endorse on the original a certificate to that effect over his signature. Code 1940, Title 7, Section 822. There was non-compliance, also, with the last-mentioned requisite as to furnishing the adverse party, or his attorney, with a copy of the bill.

The bill of exceptions having been stricken and the record proper appearing to be regular in every respect, the judgment is ordered affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 So. 2d 757, 30 Ala. App. 509, 1942 Ala. App. LEXIS 101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hudson-v-state-alactapp-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack