Nixon v. Richardson

206 So. 2d 877, 281 Ala. 632, 1968 Ala. LEXIS 1251
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided January 18, 1968·No. 3 Div. 270·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

GOODWYN, Justice.

Appellee has moved for affirmance of the judgment appealed from on the ground [633]*633that “the appellant’s brief does not contain a condensed recital of the evidence in narrative form under the heading, ‘Statement of the Facts,’ which would enable the Court to determine whether the Court below decided the case correctly under the law and the evidence,” as required by Rule 9(b) of the Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of Alabama, 279 Ala. XXIII, XXVI.

The motion is well-taken, and the judgment is due to be affirmed. See: Employers Insurance Company of Alabama, Inc. v. Watkins, 280 Ala. 681, 198 So.2d 258; Bolton v. Barnett Lumber & Supply Company, 267 Ala. 74, 100 So.2d 9, and cases there cited.

Affirmed.

LAWSON, COLEMAN, and HAR-WOOD, JJ., concur.

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

Nixon v. Richardson, 206 So. 2d 877, 281 Ala. 632, 1968 Ala. LEXIS 1251 (Ala. 1968).

206 So. 2d 877 (Nixon v. Richardson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Groves v. Segars
261 So. 2d 389 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1972)
Metzger Brothers, Inc. v. Friedman
261 So. 2d 398 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1971)
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Kuykendall
247 So. 2d 356 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1971)
State v. Argo-Collier Truck Lines Corporation
237 So. 2d 104 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1970)
Kinsaul v. Florala Telephone Company
228 So. 2d 777 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1969)