Robinson v. Sandlin

Alabama Court of Appeals

Robinson v. Sandlin

133 So. 744, 24 Ala. App. 235, 1931 Ala. App. LEXIS 234

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 7, 1931

Docket6 Div. 837.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 133 So. 744 (Robinson v. Sandlin) 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

Robinson v. Sandlin, 133 So. 744, 24 Ala. App. 235, 1931 Ala. App. LEXIS 234 (Ala. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

It appears from the record that this cause was tried and determined in the lower court on December 10, 1929, wherein the plaintiff (appellee) was awarded $400 as damages suffered as a result of a collision between appellant’s truck and the automobile of appellee. On February 2, 1930, an appeal was taken to this court, and the cause here submitted on November 28, 1930. The submission was upon “motion and merits.” The motion by appellee to affirm the judgment in the lower court is predicated upon several grounds, but the first ground thereof is sufficient of itself and necessitates the granting of the motion to affirm. This ground as stated is: “Because there are no assignments of error in the record as the law requires.” Investigation discloses that no error has been assigned. The failure of appellant to assign errors requires the affirmance of the judgment of the lower court, from which this appeal was taken. Williams v. Ensley Motor Co., 19 Ala. App. 57, 94 So. 612; Supreme Court Rule 1; Nichols v. Hardegree, 202 Ala. 132, 79 So. 598, and cases cited.

Motion granted, judgment affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

It appears from the record that this cause was tried and determined in the lower court on December 10, 1929, wherein the plaintiff (appellee) was awarded $400 as damages suffered as a result of a collision between appellant’s truck and the automobile of appellee. On February 2, 1930, an appeal was taken to this court, and the cause here submitted on November 28, 1930. The submission was upon “motion and merits.” The motion by appellee to affirm the judgment in the lower court is predicated upon several grounds, but the first ground thereof is sufficient of itself and necessitates the granting of the motion to affirm. This ground as stated is: “Because there are no assignments of error in the record as the law requires.” Investigation discloses that no error has been assigned. The failure of appellant to assign errors requires the affirmance of the judgment of the lower court, from which this appeal was taken. Williams v. Ensley Motor Co., 19 Ala. App. 57, 94 So. 612; Supreme Court Rule 1; Nichols v. Hardegree, 202 Ala. 132, 79 So. 598, and cases cited.

Motion granted, judgment affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 So. 744, 24 Ala. App. 235, 1931 Ala. App. LEXIS 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-sandlin-alactapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack