Piatt v. Hilty

106 So. 67, 21 Ala. App. 127, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 266
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided August 4, 1925·No. 6 Div. 696.·Published

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

The judgment is against two defendants; both appeal. There is a joint assignment of error. The assignment claims error in that the trial court refused to give the general charge as requested in writing as to one defendant. This could not have injured the defendant who was not entitled to affirmative instructions. As presented, we cannot consider the assignment. Birmingham Finance Co. v. Barber, 19 Ala. App. 609, 99 So. 736; S. S. S. & I. Co. v. Taylor, 16 Ala. App. 241, 77 So. 79; 13 Mich. Dig. 134, par. 721 (1).

The foregoing being the only error argued in brief, and there being no error apparent on the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Piatt v. Hilty, 106 So. 67, 21 Ala. App. 127, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 266 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

106 So. 67 (Piatt v. Hilty) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Birmingham Finance Co. v. Barber
99 So. 736 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1924)
Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Taylor
77 So. 79 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1917)