Stapp v. Roberts

160 So. 558, 26 Ala. App. 378, 1935 Ala. App. LEXIS 80
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided March 26, 1935·No. 6 Div. 698.·Published

Opinion

RICE, Judge.

In our opinion in the case of Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Smalley, 156 So. 639, 641, 1 we said: “The duty rests upon the appellant, in a civil case, to ‘point out’ error; * * * it includes pointing out, under the law — cited —why it is error.”

The quoted statement received the approval of the Supreme Court. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Smalley, ante, p. 176, 156 So. 641.

In the instant case appellant’s counsel in his brief filed here — perhaps because the “error” did not exist — has failed to comply with the rule for reversal (provided, of course, the error was prejudicial to appellant’s rights) laid down above.

*379 Hence the judgment must be, and is, affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

Ante, p. 176.

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

Stapp v. Roberts, 160 So. 558, 26 Ala. App. 378, 1935 Ala. App. LEXIS 80 (Ala. Ct. App. 1935).

160 So. 558 (Stapp v. Roberts) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Smalley
156 So. 641 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1934)
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Smalley
156 So. 639 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1934)