Mitchell v. David

150 So. 563, 25 Ala. App. 560, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 181
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided October 31, 1933·No. 6 Div. 439.·Published

Opinion

RICE, Judge.

More might be said, but it will suffice for a disposition of this appeal to say that assignments of error 1, 2, 4, and 6, at least, do not comply with Supreme Court rule 1 (Michie’s Code 1928, p. 1928), and this court ■must decline to consider them. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. of Chattanooga, Tenn., v. Priest, 212 Ala. 576, 103 So. 678.

And that, all the assignments of error being “argued in bulk,” so that we are unable to say which is, and which is not, properly insisted upon, we cannot predicate a reversal upon any one of same. See City of Montgomery v. Moon, 208 Ala. 472, 94 So. 337; Alabama Co. v. Norwood, 211 Ala. 385, 100 So. 479.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Mitchell v. David, 150 So. 563, 25 Ala. App. 560, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 181 (Ala. Ct. App. 1933).

150 So. 563 (Mitchell v. David) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Alabama Co. v. Norwood
100 So. 479 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1924)
City of Montgomery v. Moon
94 So. 337 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1922)
Provident Life Accident Ins. Co. v. Priest
103 So. 678 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1925)