Lienkauff & Strauss v. Tuskaloosa Sale & Advancing Co.

99 Ala. 619
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided November 15, 1892·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

HARALSON, J.

In the transcript filed in this cause; a judgment does not appear to have been rendered by the court on the motion for a rule against the sheriff and his sureties.

Everything in the transcript, having any relevancy to this proceeding, appears to have been entered on and taken from the motion docket of the court, which docket, as we have before now held, is not part of. the record proper of the Circuit Court, and proceedings shown by it, can only become so, by being enrolled as' a matter of record, or by bill of exceptions. David v. David, 66 Ala. 140; James v. Moseley, 47 Ala. 299; Waring v. Gilbert, 25 Ala. 295. There is no bill of exceptions in this case. We have, therefore, before us a transcript of [620] proceedings in a matter, inwiiiob.no judgment was rendered, and which proceedings were never entered, so far as we know, on the ■ records of said Circuit Court. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed.

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

Lienkauff & Strauss v. Tuskaloosa Sale & Advancing Co., 99 Ala. 619 (Ala. 1892).

99 Ala. 619 (Lienkauff & Strauss v. Tuskaloosa Sale & Advancing Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Irby v. Kaigler
60 So. 418 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1912)
O'Brien v. Brewer
56 So. 49 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1911)
Ewing v. Wofford
122 Ala. 439 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1898)
Ex parte Highland Avenue & Belt Railroad
105 Ala. 221 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1894)
Richmond & Danville Railroad v. Jones
102 Ala. 212 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1893)