State v. Lovejoy

Alabama Court of Appeals

State v. Lovejoy

67 So. 738, 12 Ala. App. 630, 1915 Ala. App. LEXIS 218

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 4, 1915

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 67 So. 738 (State v. Lovejoy) 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

State v. Lovejoy, 67 So. 738, 12 Ala. App. 630, 1915 Ala. App. LEXIS 218 (Ala. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

PELHAM, P. J.

-The Supreme Court in this case has reversed itself, and in doing so has ex necessitate legis reversed the holding of this court based on the former holding of that court in a case which it has in the opinion in this case expressly overruled.—Ex parte State, 66 South. 1; State v. Lovejoy, 64 South. 1021. The point, made by the appellee for the first time in the Supreme Court (which seems to have been overlooked there), that this court’s judgment of affirmance should not be disturbed, notwithstanding the cardinal proposition of law involved, because the bill of exceptions which undertakes to set out the evidence on which the trial court based its judgment does not purport to set out all of the evidence, is well taken (Evansville Pkt. Co. v. Slater, 101 Ala. 245, 15 South. 241; Prine v. A. C. I. Co., 171 Ala. 343, 54 South. 547), and a judgment, as heretofore rendered, affirming the judgment of the lower court, it seems to us, is proper.

Affirmed.

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

PELHAM, P. J.

-The Supreme Court in this case has reversed itself, and in doing so has ex necessitate legis reversed the holding of this court based on the former holding of that court in a case which it has in the opinion in this case expressly overruled.—Ex parte State, 66 South. 1; State v. Lovejoy, 64 South. 1021. The point, made by the appellee for the first time in the Supreme Court (which seems to have been overlooked there), that this court’s judgment of affirmance should not be disturbed, notwithstanding the cardinal proposition of law involved, because the bill of exceptions which undertakes to set out the evidence on which the trial court based its judgment does not purport to set out all of the evidence, is well taken (Evansville Pkt. Co. v. Slater, 101 Ala. 245, 15 South. 241; Prine v. A. C. I. Co., 171 Ala. 343, 54 South. 547), and a judgment, as heretofore rendered, affirming the judgment of the lower court, it seems to us, is proper.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 So. 738, 12 Ala. App. 630, 1915 Ala. App. LEXIS 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lovejoy-alactapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack