Kerr v. Borden

Alabama Court of Appeals

Kerr v. Borden

140 So. 773, 25 Ala. App. 76, 1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 85

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 29, 1932

Docket7 Div. 857.

StatusPublished

This text of 140 So. 773 (Kerr v. Borden) 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

Kerr v. Borden, 140 So. 773, 25 Ala. App. 76, 1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 85 (Ala. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J. -

- In the opinion in the case of Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. of Chattanooga v. Priest, 212 Ala. 576, 103 So. 678, 680, the Supreme Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Miller, used this language: “If the [an] assignment of error is uncertain and indefinite as to the particular error complained of, this court will decline to consider it. The assignment should state concisely in what the error consists,” citing Supreme Court Rule 1, and other authorities. And see citations following said Supreme Court Rule 1, Michie’s Code of 1928, p. 192S.

The assignments of error on this appeal do not comply with said Supreme Coui’t Rule 1, and will not be considered. Authorities supra.

We might express the opinion, however, that, from a reading of the whole record, including the bill of exceptions, it is apparent that the trial of the ease was infected with no prejudicially erroneous ruling. Perhaps that accounts for the assignments of error being “confused and confusing.”

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

RICE, J. -

- In the opinion in the case of Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. of Chattanooga v. Priest, 212 Ala. 576, 103 So. 678, 680, the Supreme Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Miller, used this language: “If the [an] assignment of error is uncertain and indefinite as to the particular error complained of, this court will decline to consider it. The assignment should state concisely in what the error consists,” citing Supreme Court Rule 1, and other authorities. And see citations following said Supreme Court Rule 1, Michie’s Code of 1928, p. 192S.

The assignments of error on this appeal do not comply with said Supreme Coui’t Rule 1, and will not be considered. Authorities supra.

We might express the opinion, however, that, from a reading of the whole record, including the bill of exceptions, it is apparent that the trial of the ease was infected with no prejudicially erroneous ruling. Perhaps that accounts for the assignments of error being “confused and confusing.”

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 So. 773, 25 Ala. App. 76, 1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kerr-v-borden-alactapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack