Maddox v. Broyles

42 Ala. 436
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided January 15, 1868·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

JUDGE, J.

The supposed bill of exceptions found in the record is without date, and the record contains no evidence that it was signed in term time, or Within ten days thereafter, pursuant to the written consent of the parties [437]*437for that purpose. Under these circumstances, it cannot be looked to as a part of the record for any purpose; such is now the settled construction of § 2358 of the Code. — Bryant v. The State, 36 Ala. 270; Union India Rubber Co. v. Mitchell, 37 Ala. 314, and cases therein cited.

No errors are assigned as to any matter presented by the record proper, and the judgment must be affirmed.

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

Maddox v. Broyles, 42 Ala. 436 (Ala. 1868).

42 Ala. 436 (Maddox v. Broyles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Edinburgh-American Land Mortgage Co. v. Canterbury
53 So. 823 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1910)
Crowe v. Corporation of Charles Town
57 S.E. 330 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1907)
Dantzler & Sons v. Swift Creek Mill Co.
128 Ala. 410 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1900)
Morris v. Brannen & Sons
103 Ala. 602 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1893)
Stearn & Co. v. Lehman-Durr & Co.
2 So. 708 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1887)