Roach v. Warren-Neeley & Co.

44 So. 103, 151 Ala. 302, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 509
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedMay 9, 1907
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 44 So. 103 (Roach v. Warren-Neeley & Co.) 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
Roach v. Warren-Neeley & Co., 44 So. 103, 151 Ala. 302, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 509 (Ala. 1907).

Opinion

DOWDELL, J.

The bill of exceptions in this case does not purport to set out the evidence in full had upon the trial, but in the main only its tendency. The assignments of error on the record relate alone to the oral charge of the court and certain written charges, ■ given at the instance of the plaintiffs. It was not a disputed fact that at the time the defendant mailed to the plaintiffs the check for $173.24 he (the defendant) ivas indebted to the plaintiffs on account in the sum of $250.89. The part of the oral charge of the court, excepted to by [306]*306the defendant and here assigned as error, correctly stated the law. As the bill of exceptions does not undertake to set out in full all the evidence, but only its tendencies, we are not prepared to say, and cannot say, that the facts hypothesized in the written charges asked by the plaintiffs were not stated in evidence. On the facts hypothesized in the several written charges, the court correctly stated the law.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Tyson, C. J., and Anderson and McClellan, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Boohaker v. Trott
145 So. 2d 179 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1962)
Morgan v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
346 P.2d 1071 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1959)
Dimos v. Stowe
71 S.E.2d 186 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1952)
Gottlieb v. Charles Scribner's Sons
166 So. 685 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1936)
Ex Parte Southern Cotton Oil Co.
93 So. 662 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 So. 103, 151 Ala. 302, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roach-v-warren-neeley-co-ala-1907.