Wrenger v. Leigeber

Alabama Court of Appeals

Wrenger v. Leigeber

166 So. 727, 27 Ala. App. 121, 1936 Ala. App. LEXIS 54

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 10, 1936

Docket6 Div. 867.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 166 So. 727 (Wrenger v. Leigeber) 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

Wrenger v. Leigeber, 166 So. 727, 27 Ala. App. 121, 1936 Ala. App. LEXIS 54 (Ala. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, Judge.

Suit by appellee against appellant to recover the amount of a mortgage note given for the balance of the purchase price of a “secondhand” automobile.

The learned trial judge gave to the jury the general affirmative charge, with hypothesis, to find in favor of the plaintiff, appellee.

Appellant’s industrious counsel have made twenty-three assignments of error; and have filed here a rather voluminous brief.

But it seems, and we hold, that no one of the assignments of error is “argued” here in the way and manner we have outlined, with the approval of our Supreme Court, as being necessary to call for a decision by us. The said “way and manner” we refer to was thus described: “The duty rests upon the appellant, in a civil case, to ‘point out’ error; and ‘pointing it out’ consists of more than merely saying: ‘There it is!’ We venture to suggest that it includes pointing out, under the law — cited—why it is error" (Italics presently supplied.) Great Atlantic *122 & Pacific Tea Co. v. Smalley (Ala.App.) 156 So. 639, 641 1 ; certiorari denied by our Supreme Court in Id., 229 Ala. 289, 156 So. 641.

We have carefully examined the record and bill of exceptions in the case, and have given close attention to what is said in the .brief filed here on behalf of appellant. But all that is set forth in said brief by way of argument is completely and satisfactorily “answered” in the brief filed here on behalf of appellee. And by reason of appellant’s “argument” on any given or stated proposition not complying with the rule we have hereinabove repeated, we are content to merely state that a prejudicially erroneous ruling or action on the part of the trial court is not made to appear for our consideration.

Hence the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

26 Ala.App. 176.

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

RICE, Judge.

Suit by appellee against appellant to recover the amount of a mortgage note given for the balance of the purchase price of a “secondhand” automobile.

The learned trial judge gave to the jury the general affirmative charge, with hypothesis, to find in favor of the plaintiff, appellee.

Appellant’s industrious counsel have made twenty-three assignments of error; and have filed here a rather voluminous brief.

But it seems, and we hold, that no one of the assignments of error is “argued” here in the way and manner we have outlined, with the approval of our Supreme Court, as being necessary to call for a decision by us. The said “way and manner” we refer to was thus described: “The duty rests upon the appellant, in a civil case, to ‘point out’ error; and ‘pointing it out’ consists of more than merely saying: ‘There it is!’ We venture to suggest that it includes pointing out, under the law — cited—why it is error" (Italics presently supplied.) Great Atlantic *122 & Pacific Tea Co. v. Smalley (Ala.App.) 156 So. 639, 641 1 ; certiorari denied by our Supreme Court in Id., 229 Ala. 289, 156 So. 641.

We have carefully examined the record and bill of exceptions in the case, and have given close attention to what is said in the .brief filed here on behalf of appellant. But all that is set forth in said brief by way of argument is completely and satisfactorily “answered” in the brief filed here on behalf of appellee. And by reason of appellant’s “argument” on any given or stated proposition not complying with the rule we have hereinabove repeated, we are content to merely state that a prejudicially erroneous ruling or action on the part of the trial court is not made to appear for our consideration.

Hence the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

26 Ala.App. 176.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 So. 727, 27 Ala. App. 121, 1936 Ala. App. LEXIS 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wrenger-v-leigeber-alactapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack