Pool v. Hart

Supreme Court of Alabama

Pool v. Hart

132 So. 59, 222 Ala. 232, 1931 Ala. LEXIS 370

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 15, 1931

Docket6 Div. 789.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 132 So. 59 (Pool v. Hart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pool v. Hart, 132 So. 59, 222 Ala. 232, 1931 Ala. LEXIS 370 (Ala. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

SAYRE, J.

Of the numerous assignments of error on the record certified to the Court of Appeals that court gave specific statement and ruling to the questions presented by two of them only. That court denied a hearing as to the rest for the reason that appellant’s brief had not been prepared in accord with rules 10 and 12 of this court. This court, 'according to the rule of review adopted upon the creation of the Court of Appeals and followed consistently since, will not undertake to review questions not decided by that court. If petitioner, appellant, would, in a proper case, require the Court of Appeals to pronounce judgment on specific assignments of error which may have been properly presented to that court, thé remedy is not by certiorari.

In the opinion and judgment of the Court of Appeals passing upon two assignments of error, viz., that relating to the action of the trial court overruling petitioner’s demurrer to count 3 of the complaint, and the ruling denying error in a specified part of the trial court’s oral charge to the jury, we find no error. No more detailed discussion is necessary.

The writ applied for must need be denied. Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and BROWN, JJ., concur.

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

SAYRE, J.

Of the numerous assignments of error on the record certified to the Court of Appeals that court gave specific statement and ruling to the questions presented by two of them only. That court denied a hearing as to the rest for the reason that appellant’s brief had not been prepared in accord with rules 10 and 12 of this court. This court, 'according to the rule of review adopted upon the creation of the Court of Appeals and followed consistently since, will not undertake to review questions not decided by that court. If petitioner, appellant, would, in a proper case, require the Court of Appeals to pronounce judgment on specific assignments of error which may have been properly presented to that court, thé remedy is not by certiorari.

In the opinion and judgment of the Court of Appeals passing upon two assignments of error, viz., that relating to the action of the trial court overruling petitioner’s demurrer to count 3 of the complaint, and the ruling denying error in a specified part of the trial court’s oral charge to the jury, we find no error. No more detailed discussion is necessary.

The writ applied for must need be denied. Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and BROWN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 So. 59, 222 Ala. 232, 1931 Ala. LEXIS 370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pool-v-hart-ala-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack