Sharpe v. Hughes

80 So. 798, 202 Ala. 510, 1918 Ala. LEXIS 466
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided December 19, 1918·No. 6 Div. 715.·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

[1-3] All questions sought to be raised by this appeal are such as can he considered only when shown by a bill of exceptions or in connection with a bill of exceptions showing the evidence or the tendencies of the evidence adduced at the trial. The record in this cause contains what purports to be a bill of exceptions, but it is not authenticated by the signature of the judge presiding at the trial, as the statute requires (Code, § 3018), nor does it appear to have been presented within the time prescribed by law (Code, § 3019). In these circumstances, of which the court takes notice ex mero, the so-called bill of exceptions cannot be considered for any purpose. Box v. Southern Railway Co., 184 Ala. 598, 64 South. 69; Edinburg-American L. M. Co. v. Canterbury, 169 Ala. 444, 53 South. 823; Rainey v. Ridgeway, 151 Ala. 532, 43 South. 843. It results that the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. J., and McOLELLAN, SAYRE, and GARDNER, JJ., concur.

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

Sharpe v. Hughes, 80 So. 798, 202 Ala. 510, 1918 Ala. LEXIS 466 (Ala. 1918).

80 So. 798 (Sharpe v. Hughes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Vernon v. State
18 So. 2d 388 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1944)
General Ordnance Co. v. Bowen
96 So. 753 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1923)