Washburn v. Johnson Bros. Co.

Alabama Court of Appeals

Washburn v. Johnson Bros. Co.

81 So. 136, 16 Ala. App. 662, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 14

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 14, 1919

Docket6 Div. 534.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 81 So. 136 (Washburn v. Johnson Bros. Co.) 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

Washburn v. Johnson Bros. Co., 81 So. 136, 16 Ala. App. 662, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 14 (Ala. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The testimony submitted in support of the motion to establish the bill of exceptions shows that the proposed bill was presented to the trial judge on the 12th day of July, 1918, that it was thereupon delivered to counsel for appellee, who made several changes in the bill as presented, and it was then returned to the clerk of the court, and later delivered to the judge, who failed to sign it within the time required by, law. The evidence further shows that the'bill, after its alteration, truly presented “the points of decision and the facts.” The evi-, dence further shows that the bill as cor-: rected did not reach the hands of the pre-( siding judge until after the expiration of 90 days from the rendition of the judgment.-

The alteration relating to what the plain-i tiff proposed to show by the witness George, Johnson respecting the transaction between, Hildebrand, Tidwell, and Johnson Bros.,: through which the indebtedness of Tidwell, to Johnson Bros, was extinguished, was aj material alteration, and therefore the bill, as presented to the trial judge was not a; correct bill of exceptions, and the motion to establish the bill as corrected must be overruled. Bradberry v. State, 168 Ala. 141, 53 South. 266.

After consideration of the motion of the appellee to dismiss the appeal, the opinion prevails that this motion should be granted, and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The testimony submitted in support of the motion to establish the bill of exceptions shows that the proposed bill was presented to the trial judge on the 12th day of July, 1918, that it was thereupon delivered to counsel for appellee, who made several changes in the bill as presented, and it was then returned to the clerk of the court, and later delivered to the judge, who failed to sign it within the time required by, law. The evidence further shows that the'bill, after its alteration, truly presented “the points of decision and the facts.” The evi-, dence further shows that the bill as cor-: rected did not reach the hands of the pre-( siding judge until after the expiration of 90 days from the rendition of the judgment.-

The alteration relating to what the plain-i tiff proposed to show by the witness George, Johnson respecting the transaction between, Hildebrand, Tidwell, and Johnson Bros.,: through which the indebtedness of Tidwell, to Johnson Bros, was extinguished, was aj material alteration, and therefore the bill, as presented to the trial judge was not a; correct bill of exceptions, and the motion to establish the bill as corrected must be overruled. Bradberry v. State, 168 Ala. 141, 53 South. 266.

After consideration of the motion of the appellee to dismiss the appeal, the opinion prevails that this motion should be granted, and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 So. 136, 16 Ala. App. 662, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washburn-v-johnson-bros-co-alactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack