Patterson v. Holt

Alabama Court of Appeals

Patterson v. Holt

78 So. 637, 16 Ala. App. 439, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 120

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 9, 1918

Docket5 Div. 276.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 78 So. 637 (Patterson v. Holt) 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

Patterson v. Holt, 78 So. 637, 16 Ala. App. 439, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 120 (Ala. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKBN, J.

[1,2] This case is submitted on motion to dismiss the appeal and upon its merits. It affirmatively appears that the bill of exceptions was not presented to the trial judge within 90 days from the date of the rendition of the judgment, though it was presented within 90 days after the ruling and judgment of the court on the motion for a new trial; the bill of exceptions can therefore only be considered for the purpose of reviewing the action of the trial court on the motion for a new trial. McLeod v. Flourney, 3 Ala. App. 547, 57 South. 630. However, we are without authority to review the action of the trial court on the motion for a new trial, as no exception was reserved to the ruling of the court in this connection, and the action of the trial court on the motion for a new trial, will not he reviewed, unless the bill of exceptions shows an exception to the action of the court. Acts 1915, p. 722; King v. State, ante, p. 103, 75 South. 692, 694; Dorough v. Harrington & Sons, 148 Ala. 305, 42 South. 557.

It follows that the judgment of the lower court must he affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BRICKBN, J.

[1,2] This case is submitted on motion to dismiss the appeal and upon its merits. It affirmatively appears that the bill of exceptions was not presented to the trial judge within 90 days from the date of the rendition of the judgment, though it was presented within 90 days after the ruling and judgment of the court on the motion for a new trial; the bill of exceptions can therefore only be considered for the purpose of reviewing the action of the trial court on the motion for a new trial. McLeod v. Flourney, 3 Ala. App. 547, 57 South. 630. However, we are without authority to review the action of the trial court on the motion for a new trial, as no exception was reserved to the ruling of the court in this connection, and the action of the trial court on the motion for a new trial, will not he reviewed, unless the bill of exceptions shows an exception to the action of the court. Acts 1915, p. 722; King v. State, ante, p. 103, 75 South. 692, 694; Dorough v. Harrington & Sons, 148 Ala. 305, 42 South. 557.

It follows that the judgment of the lower court must he affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 So. 637, 16 Ala. App. 439, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patterson-v-holt-alactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack