Trousdale v. Bedingfield

Alabama Court of Appeals

Trousdale v. Bedingfield

167 So. 925, 27 Ala. App. 696

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided March 24, 1936·No. 8 Div. 314.·Published

Opinion

RICE, Judge.

We find no assignment of error argued and insisted upon in the way and manner outlined as requisite in our opinion in the case of Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Smalley, 26 Ala.App. 176, 156 So. 639.

What we said in. the above opinion seems to have had the approval of our Supreme Court. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Smalley, 229 Ala. 289, 156 So. 641.

Hence we must hold, and do hold, that there is nothing before us for review. And the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

RICE, Judge.

We find no assignment of error argued and insisted upon in the way and manner outlined as requisite in our opinion in the case of Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Smalley, 26 Ala.App. 176, 156 So. 639.

What we said in. the above opinion seems to have had the approval of our Supreme Court. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Smalley, 229 Ala. 289, 156 So. 641.

Hence we must hold, and do hold, that there is nothing before us for review. And the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Trousdale v. Bedingfield, 167 So. 925, 27 Ala. App. 696 (Ala. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

167 So. 925 (Trousdale v. Bedingfield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related