Rowe v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Rowe v. State

81 So. 354, 17 Ala. App. 18, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 51

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 18, 1919

Docket6 Div. 453.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 81 So. 354 (Rowe v. State) 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

Rowe v. State, 81 So. 354, 17 Ala. App. 18, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 51 (Ala. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

*19 BRICKEN, J.

The defendant was tried upon an indictment and convicted of the offense of violating the prohibition law.

[1 ] No error appears upon the record proper ; and we are .without authority to consider the purported bill of exceptions, as it affirmatively appears that the judge who tried this case has not indorsed thereon the true date upon which the alleged bill of exceptions was presented to him. In the absence of such indorsement, there is in fact no bill of exceptions. Box et al. v. Southern Railway Co., 184 Ala. 598, 64 South. 69.

[2] The submission of this cause was had without a formal motion to strike the bill of exceptions, but it is insisted by brief of the Attorney General that the purported bill of exceptions be stricken. The seasonable presentation of the bill, to be evidenced by the bijl itself, is a jurisdictional fact, and is not, therefore, waived by the submission of the cause without motion to strike. Box et al. v. Southern Railway Co., supra; Edinburgh-American L. M. Co. v. Canterbury, 169 Ala. 444, 53 South. 823; Hartselle & Co. v. Wilhite et al., 3 Ala. App. 612, 57 South. 129.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

*19 BRICKEN, J.

The defendant was tried upon an indictment and convicted of the offense of violating the prohibition law.

[1 ] No error appears upon the record proper ; and we are .without authority to consider the purported bill of exceptions, as it affirmatively appears that the judge who tried this case has not indorsed thereon the true date upon which the alleged bill of exceptions was presented to him. In the absence of such indorsement, there is in fact no bill of exceptions. Box et al. v. Southern Railway Co., 184 Ala. 598, 64 South. 69.

[2] The submission of this cause was had without a formal motion to strike the bill of exceptions, but it is insisted by brief of the Attorney General that the purported bill of exceptions be stricken. The seasonable presentation of the bill, to be evidenced by the bijl itself, is a jurisdictional fact, and is not, therefore, waived by the submission of the cause without motion to strike. Box et al. v. Southern Railway Co., supra; Edinburgh-American L. M. Co. v. Canterbury, 169 Ala. 444, 53 South. 823; Hartselle & Co. v. Wilhite et al., 3 Ala. App. 612, 57 South. 129.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 So. 354, 17 Ala. App. 18, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowe-v-state-alactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack