Ryall v. Maix & Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Ryall v. Maix & Co.

48 Ala. 537

DecidedJune 15, 1872

StatusPublished

This text of 48 Ala. 537 (Ryall v. Maix & 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

Ryall v. Maix & Co., 48 Ala. 537 (Ala. 1872).

Pincite

Opinion

PETERS, J.

This is a motion to dismiss the appeal taken in this case, because it does not appear that the bill of exceptions was signed by the presiding judge before the adjournment of the court at which the exceptions were taken, nor in ten days afterwards by consent of counsel in writing. — Rev. Code, § 2760. Such a defect in the record does not vitiate the appeal, when it appears that there has been a final judgment in the ease in the court below, and that the appeal has been otherwise regularly taken, as is the case here. — Ref. Code, §§ 3485, 3488, 4420, 4421»

The motion is denied, with costs.

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

PETERS, J.

This is a motion to dismiss the appeal taken in this case, because it does not appear that the bill of exceptions was signed by the presiding judge before the adjournment of the court at which the exceptions were taken, nor in ten days afterwards by consent of counsel in writing. — Rev. Code, § 2760. Such a defect in the record does not vitiate the appeal, when it appears that there has been a final judgment in the ease in the court below, and that the appeal has been otherwise regularly taken, as is the case here. — Ref. Code, §§ 3485, 3488, 4420, 4421»

The motion is denied, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 Ala. 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryall-v-maix-co-ala-1872.