Larkinsville Mining Co. v. Flippo

135 Ala. 577
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Larkinsville Mining Co. v. Flippo. Read the opinion of the Court — 130 Ala. 361
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided November 15, 1902·Published

Opinion

DOWDELL, J.

What purports to he a bill of exceptions in the transcript was signed by the judge in vacation and after the expiration of the time fixed by the court in term time. The order of the court fixed sixty days from the adjournment of the court, within which to sign the bill. The court adjourned on September 21st, and the bill was signed on November 29th following, which was inore than sixty days. Therefore, that which purports to be a bill of exceptions in the transcript cannot be looked to or considered for any purpose. See Ala. Mineral R. Co. v. Marcus, 128 Ala. 355; Dantzler v. Swift Creek Mill Co., 128 Ala. 410, and cases there cited. The assignments of error based on rulings required to he presented by proper bill of exceptions, in the absence of such bill of exceptions, are without foundation and will not be considered. The errors assigned on the record proper in this case, are not insisted on in argument.

Let the judgment of the court be affirmed.

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

Larkinsville Mining Co. v. Flippo, 135 Ala. 577 (Ala. 1902).

135 Ala. 577 (Larkinsville Mining Co. v. Flippo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Alabama Mineral Railroad v. Marcus
128 Ala. 355 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1900)
Dantzler & Sons v. Swift Creek Mill Co.
128 Ala. 410 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1900)