Moore v. Helms

77 Ala. 379
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided December 15, 1884·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

SOMERVILLE, J.

The bill of exceptions -fails to set out any evidence of plaintiff’s title to the lands in controversy. We can not supplement this defect by reference to a paper copied by the clerk of the Circuit Court into another part of the record, purporting to be a certificate of entry signed by one who is styled a Receiver, without marks of reference or identification, by number, names, dates or otherwise. There is a failure to incorporate the paper in the bill, and it therefore forms no part of it. — Pearce v. Clements, 73 Ala. 256, and cases cited ; Parsons v. Woodward, Ib. 348.

The plaintiff showing no title in himself, the general charge to find for the defendant was properly given.

We need not consider the other questions, but will observe that we are inclined to think there is n'o error in the record upon any of the assignments of error urged by the appellant.

Affirmed.

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

Moore v. Helms, 77 Ala. 379 (Ala. 1884).

77 Ala. 379 (Moore v. Helms) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jones v. First Nat. Bank
89 So. 437 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1921)
Danforth & Armstrong v. Tennessee & Coosa River Railroad
99 Ala. 331 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1892)