Southern Railway Co. v. Graham

Alabama Court of Appeals

Southern Railway Co. v. Graham

58 So. 672, 4 Ala. App. 398, 1912 Ala. App. LEXIS 326

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 18, 1912

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 58 So. 672 (Southern Railway Co. v. Graham) 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

Southern Railway Co. v. Graham, 58 So. 672, 4 Ala. App. 398, 1912 Ala. App. LEXIS 326 (Ala. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PELHAM, J.

The appeal in this case is prosecuted from a judgment of the circuit court of Clarke county quashing, on motion of appellee, (plaintiff in the trial court), the writ of certiorari by which the case was brought to that court from the court of a justice of the peace, and dismissing the proceeding in the circuit court. The record contains no bill of exceptions, nor does it show that an exception was reserved to the action of the court in granting the motion. To be reviewable here, the motion and the ruling thereon must be shown by bill of exceptions, and not being thus Shown, an affirmation necessarily follows.—City of Jasper v. Barton, 1 Ala. App. 472, 56 South. 42; Hooper v. State, 141 Ala. 111, 37 South. 662; Wilson v. State, 136 Ala. 114, 33 South. 831; Randall v. Wadsworth, 130 Ala. 633, 31 South. 555; Cottingham v. Greely, 129 Ala. 200, 30 South. 560, 87 Am. St. Rep. 58; Holley v. Coffee, 123 Ala. 406, 26 South. 239.

Affirmed.

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

PELHAM, J.

The appeal in this case is prosecuted from a judgment of the circuit court of Clarke county quashing, on motion of appellee, (plaintiff in the trial court), the writ of certiorari by which the case was brought to that court from the court of a justice of the peace, and dismissing the proceeding in the circuit court. The record contains no bill of exceptions, nor does it show that an exception was reserved to the action of the court in granting the motion. To be reviewable here, the motion and the ruling thereon must be shown by bill of exceptions, and not being thus Shown, an affirmation necessarily follows.—City of Jasper v. Barton, 1 Ala. App. 472, 56 South. 42; Hooper v. State, 141 Ala. 111, 37 South. 662; Wilson v. State, 136 Ala. 114, 33 South. 831; Randall v. Wadsworth, 130 Ala. 633, 31 South. 555; Cottingham v. Greely, 129 Ala. 200, 30 South. 560, 87 Am. St. Rep. 58; Holley v. Coffee, 123 Ala. 406, 26 South. 239.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 So. 672, 4 Ala. App. 398, 1912 Ala. App. LEXIS 326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-railway-co-v-graham-alactapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack