Miller v. Whittington

Supreme Court of Alabama

Miller v. Whittington

85 So. 394, 204 Ala. 207, 1920 Ala. LEXIS 90

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedApril 22, 1920

Docket4 Div. 827.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 85 So. 394 (Miller v. Whittington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miller v. Whittington, 85 So. 394, 204 Ala. 207, 1920 Ala. LEXIS 90 (Ala. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, J.

[1, 2] The bill of exceptions, as appears on its face, was not presented to the trial judge within 90 days from the date the decree appealed from was entered, as is required by section 2863 of the Code of 1907, nor does the bill appear to have been signed by the judge as an act of approval. The only signature of the judge appears to be as certifying that he “accepted” the presentation which, however, was more than 90 days after the judgment purports to have been entered. The presentation of the hill of exceptions within the time specified in the statute is a jurisdictional requisite to the judge’s authority to sign it, so as to make it a part of the record; and the indorsement of the fact of its presentation, signed by the judge, is the only evidence to which this court will look, unless the bill is signed within the period allowed for presentation.

Nothing is presented on the record proper for review, and as the bill of exceptions was not made a part of the record,- as required by law, the matters therein sought to be presented for review are not available to appellants.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE and GARDNER, JJ., concur.

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

BROWN, J.

[1, 2] The bill of exceptions, as appears on its face, was not presented to the trial judge within 90 days from the date the decree appealed from was entered, as is required by section 2863 of the Code of 1907, nor does the bill appear to have been signed by the judge as an act of approval. The only signature of the judge appears to be as certifying that he “accepted” the presentation which, however, was more than 90 days after the judgment purports to have been entered. The presentation of the hill of exceptions within the time specified in the statute is a jurisdictional requisite to the judge’s authority to sign it, so as to make it a part of the record; and the indorsement of the fact of its presentation, signed by the judge, is the only evidence to which this court will look, unless the bill is signed within the period allowed for presentation.

Nothing is presented on the record proper for review, and as the bill of exceptions was not made a part of the record,- as required by law, the matters therein sought to be presented for review are not available to appellants.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE and GARDNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 So. 394, 204 Ala. 207, 1920 Ala. LEXIS 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-whittington-ala-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack