Jonas Schwab & Co. v. Hall

Supreme Court of Alabama

Jonas Schwab & Co. v. Hall

47 So. 137, 156 Ala. 560, 1908 Ala. LEXIS 60

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 18, 1908

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 47 So. 137 (Jonas Schwab & Co. v. Hall) 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

Jonas Schwab & Co. v. Hall, 47 So. 137, 156 Ala. 560, 1908 Ala. LEXIS 60 (Ala. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

McCLELLAN, j.

The action was for money had and received. Trial by the judge without the jury, and judgment for plaintiff for a sum in excess of set-off pleaded and sustained. The bill of exceptions purports to set out tendencies of the evidence, though it does conclude with the recital that “upon this evidence, which is substantially all the evidence given on the trial of said cause.” This state of the bill renders it equivocal whether the hill does contain all of the evidence, which doubt, if so, we must resolve against the party bringing up the bill. We cannot, therefore, review the court’s conclusion on the main trial.

The motion to retax the costs, under the motion to that end, should have been sustained, as was held in Fuller v. Hunter, 34 Ala. 56. The action of the court in overruling the motion to retax cost is reversed, and the cause is remanded, that the court below may di spose of the motion in accordance with our conclusion.

Reversed and remanded.

Tyson, C. J., and Dowdell and Anderson, JJ., concur.

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

McCLELLAN, j.

The action was for money had and received. Trial by the judge without the jury, and judgment for plaintiff for a sum in excess of set-off pleaded and sustained. The bill of exceptions purports to set out tendencies of the evidence, though it does conclude with the recital that “upon this evidence, which is substantially all the evidence given on the trial of said cause.” This state of the bill renders it equivocal whether the hill does contain all of the evidence, which doubt, if so, we must resolve against the party bringing up the bill. We cannot, therefore, review the court’s conclusion on the main trial.

The motion to retax the costs, under the motion to that end, should have been sustained, as was held in Fuller v. Hunter, 34 Ala. 56. The action of the court in overruling the motion to retax cost is reversed, and the cause is remanded, that the court below may di spose of the motion in accordance with our conclusion.

Reversed and remanded.

Tyson, C. J., and Dowdell and Anderson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 So. 137, 156 Ala. 560, 1908 Ala. LEXIS 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jonas-schwab-co-v-hall-ala-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack