McMillan v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

McMillan v. State

147 So. 200, 25 Ala. App. 395, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 61

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 28, 1933

Docket8 Div. 632.

StatusPublished

This text of 147 So. 200 (McMillan v. State) 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

McMillan v. State, 147 So. 200, 25 Ala. App. 395, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 61 (Ala. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, Judge.

Assuming that this ease was duly tried in the court from which the appeal comes, it is clear that, after considering “all questions apparent on the record or reserved by bill of exceptions,” there nowhere appears a prejudicially erroneous ruling. Code 1923, § 3258.

Appellant’s astute counsel strongly insists that inasmuch as the act creating said court (Loc. Acts Ala. 1931, pp. 72-79) provides that, immediately after the “approval” of the act, the presiding judge of the circuit court of Lauderdale county s.hall “make an order transferring, etc.,” certain cases, of which this is one, to the law and equity court of Lauderdale county, and that inasmuch as said act was never “approved” but was passed over the Governor’s veto, there never arrived a time when said ease could be lawfully transferred, etc., into the said law and equity court, etc. But we think, and holdj his contention without merit.

It seems to us Settled that, for the purposes referred to above, the “passage” of the act in the manner set forth was the legal equivalent of the “approval” mentioned in the body of same. See Jemison v. Town of Ft. Deposit, 21 Ala. App. 331, 108 So. 396.

And, the contents of the last preceding paragraph herein being true, the case was properly transferred to, and tried in, the law and equity court of Lauderdale county.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

RICE, Judge.

Assuming that this ease was duly tried in the court from which the appeal comes, it is clear that, after considering “all questions apparent on the record or reserved by bill of exceptions,” there nowhere appears a prejudicially erroneous ruling. Code 1923, § 3258.

Appellant’s astute counsel strongly insists that inasmuch as the act creating said court (Loc. Acts Ala. 1931, pp. 72-79) provides that, immediately after the “approval” of the act, the presiding judge of the circuit court of Lauderdale county s.hall “make an order transferring, etc.,” certain cases, of which this is one, to the law and equity court of Lauderdale county, and that inasmuch as said act was never “approved” but was passed over the Governor’s veto, there never arrived a time when said ease could be lawfully transferred, etc., into the said law and equity court, etc. But we think, and holdj his contention without merit.

It seems to us Settled that, for the purposes referred to above, the “passage” of the act in the manner set forth was the legal equivalent of the “approval” mentioned in the body of same. See Jemison v. Town of Ft. Deposit, 21 Ala. App. 331, 108 So. 396.

And, the contents of the last preceding paragraph herein being true, the case was properly transferred to, and tried in, the law and equity court of Lauderdale county.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 So. 200, 25 Ala. App. 395, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmillan-v-state-alactapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack