Peever v. City Com'rs of Florence

157 So. 79, 26 Ala. App. 213, 1934 Ala. App. LEXIS 108
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided June 5, 1934·No. 8 Div. 973.·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

RICE, Judge.

It is enough to say, in disposing of this appeal, that the prosecution is for a violation of an ordinance of the city of Florence ; and that, Code 1923, § 3258, not applying (Casteel v. City of Decatur, 215 Ala. 4, 109 So. 571), and there being no assignment of error “written upon the transcript,” in accordance with Supreme Court Rule of Practice No. 1 (Code 1923, vol. 4, p. 880) there is nothing presented for our decision. Halle v. Brooks, 209 Ala. 486, 96 So. 341.

It seems anomalous to affirm a judgment which is clearly erroneous (Wright v. City of Bessemer, 209 Ala. 374, 96 So. 316), but we are not permitted (Code 1923, § 7318) to make shipwreck of the rules of practice — so vital ■to an orderly administration of the law — in order to save possible hardship in an isolated case. Halle v. Brooks, supra.

The judgment appealed from is affirmedi

Affirmed.

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

Peever v. City Com'rs of Florence, 157 So. 79, 26 Ala. App. 213, 1934 Ala. App. LEXIS 108 (Ala. Ct. App. 1934).

157 So. 79 (Peever v. City Com'rs of Florence) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Arnold v. City of Mobile
30 So. 2d 40 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1947)
Ashley v. City of Scottsboro
29 So. 2d 435 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1947)
Brackin v. State
14 So. 2d 383 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1943)
Lindsey v. State
5 So. 2d 352 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1941)