Albright Equipment Co. v. Waddell, 6 Div. 614
| Decision Date | 03 July 1969 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 614 |
| Citation | 284 Ala. 329,224 So.2d 878 |
| Parties | ALBRIGHT EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Inc. v. Roy WADDELL et al. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Earl D. Hendon, Birmingham, for appellant.
Jenkins, Cole, Callaway & Vance, Birmingham, for appellees Roy Waddell, Charles McEwen and Herschel McEwen.
Allen Poppleton, Wyatt R. Haskell and Bradley, Arant, Rose & White, Birmingham, for appellee Charles Machine Works, Inc.
This is an appeal from a final decree for respondents rendered by the circuit court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, in equity, in a suit brought by the appellant corporation against respondents, Roy Waddell, Charles McEwen, and Herschel McEwen, formerly employees or part-owners of appellant corporation, and a corporate respondent, the Charles Machine Works, seeking injunctive relief and money damages.
The bill alleged that for some time prior to April 11, 1967, complainant, Albright Equipment Company, had been authorized to sell and service a trenching machine manufactured by respondent, Charles Machine Works, under the trade name 'Ditch-Witch.' The bill further alleged that respondents, Roy Waddell and Charles McEwen, had for some years served as directors and owned stock in Albright Equipment, and that respondent, Herschel McEwen, was employed by the corporation to sell 'Ditch-Witch.' The bill alleged that these individuals along with the respondent, Charles Machine Works, had conspired together to keep Albright Corporation from further selling and servicing the 'Ditch-Witch.' The bill alleged the conspiracy was unlawful in that it was a breach by Roy Waddell and Charles McEwen of their fiduciary duties towards Albright Equipment, and it asked that all of the respondents be enjoined from dealing with each other in connection with the sales and service of the 'Ditch-Witch.' The bill also asked for money damages in the amount of $500,000.
Two applications for injunction were made to the trial court, and after several oral hearings, the trial court entered decrees denying injunctive relief. After an oral hearing on the merits the cause was submitted for final decree, and a decree entered denying the relief sought.
In brief, Albright Equipment states its case to be that the
Ten assignments of error were filed, but only three are mentioned in appellant's brief. In reply brief, appellant contends 'there is substantially only one assignment of error, and that error is that the court did not hold the individual respondents to the rules applicable to trustees and did not hold them to their fiduciary duties as directors of appellant.'
The appellees-respondents contend that since seven of the ten assignments of error are not mentioned in appellant's brief, they are waived. Also, they contend that the assignments of error constitute nothing more than an attempt to present the entire record for review on appeal since ten of the assignments express little more than appellant's disagreement with one or more of the several decrees rendered in the court below. They also contend that in no assignment does the appellant specify the manner in which the decree is erroneous, or set forth the nature of the error assigned, as required by Supreme Court Rule 1, Revised Rules of the Supreme Court, 279 Ala. XXI. Appellees also say that appellant's brief contains nothing which resembles a condensed recital of the evidence given by each witness in narrative form, as required by our Supreme Court Rule 9, and is therefore insufficient to raise any question as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the decree below.
We agree with appellee's contention that the seven assignments of error which are not mentioned in appellant's brief cannot be considered by this court on appeal. Stallworth v. Doss, 280 Ala. 409, 194 So.2d 566; Ross v. Ross, 279 Ala. 50, 181 So.2d 491.
The only mention in appellant's brief as to assignments of error is a passing reference to 7, 8, and 10 of the assignments of error.
Assignment 7, in essence, complains that the court below erred in refusing to give relief to complainant;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metzger Bros., Inc. v. Friedman, 1 Div. 662
...not be corrected by way of reply or supplemental brief. We might say that we did not intend, by our language in Albright Equipment Co. v. Waddell, 284 Ala. 329, 224 So.2d 878, to suggest any different rule from that reflected in our decisions just The reason that Rule 9(b) requires a conden......
-
Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Kuykendall
...court's finding that the appellee executed the two notes as surety, and that a devastavit had been committed. Albright Equipment Co. v. Waddell, 284 Ala. 329, 224 So.2d 878; Stewart v. Stewart, 284 Ala. 3, 221 So.2d 116; Zanaty v. Hargerty, 280 Ala. 232, 191 So.2d 516; Mothershed v. Mothers......
- Eady v. State, 3 Div. 408
-
Harris Paint Co. v. Ripps
...clearly and palpably contrary to the great weight of the evidence. Simon v. Snyder, 279 Ala. 70, 181 So.2d 885; Albright Equipment Company v. Waddell, 284 Ala. 329, 224 So.2d 878; Lott v. Keith, 286 Ala. 431, 241 So.2d In the present case the chancellor observed and heard the witnesses pres......