Wofford Oil Co. v. City of Russellville

Alabama Court of Appeals

Wofford Oil Co. v. City of Russellville

100 So. 304, 20 Ala. App. 14, 1924 Ala. App. LEXIS 118

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 20, 1924

Docket8 Div. 151.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 100 So. 304 (Wofford Oil Co. v. City of Russellville) 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

Wofford Oil Co. v. City of Russellville, 100 So. 304, 20 Ala. App. 14, 1924 Ala. App. LEXIS 118 (Ala. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

Appellee brought suit against the appellant to recover a license for doing business as an oil company in the city of Russellville during the year 1922. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff in the sum of $100, and defendant appeals.

The cause is submitted in this court upon motion and merits; the motion being to strike the bill of exception upon the grounds that it was not presented to the trial judge within 90 days from the date of the rendition of the judgment in this cause. Upon examination we find that the judgment was rendered on the 5th day of June, 1923, and that the bill of exceptions was not presented to the trial judge until the 4th day of September, 1923. It thus appears that the facts stated in the motion are correct, and the motion to strike the bill of exceptions must be granted, as the question involved, that of the presentation of a bill of exceptions, is jurisdictional, and, unless presented to the trial judge as, and within the time, required by law, the appellate court is without authority to consider same.

The assignments of error noted upon this record are confined to questions presented by the so-called bill of exceptions. As the bill of exceptions is now stricken, for the reason stated, there is nothing before the court for review.

The judgment appealed from will stand affirmed.

Affirmed.

SAMFORD, J., not sitting.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

Appellee brought suit against the appellant to recover a license for doing business as an oil company in the city of Russellville during the year 1922. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff in the sum of $100, and defendant appeals.

The cause is submitted in this court upon motion and merits; the motion being to strike the bill of exception upon the grounds that it was not presented to the trial judge within 90 days from the date of the rendition of the judgment in this cause. Upon examination we find that the judgment was rendered on the 5th day of June, 1923, and that the bill of exceptions was not presented to the trial judge until the 4th day of September, 1923. It thus appears that the facts stated in the motion are correct, and the motion to strike the bill of exceptions must be granted, as the question involved, that of the presentation of a bill of exceptions, is jurisdictional, and, unless presented to the trial judge as, and within the time, required by law, the appellate court is without authority to consider same.

The assignments of error noted upon this record are confined to questions presented by the so-called bill of exceptions. As the bill of exceptions is now stricken, for the reason stated, there is nothing before the court for review.

The judgment appealed from will stand affirmed.

Affirmed.

SAMFORD, J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 So. 304, 20 Ala. App. 14, 1924 Ala. App. LEXIS 118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wofford-oil-co-v-city-of-russellville-alactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack