Anderson v. Anniston Electric & Gas Co.
| Decision Date | 12 November 1914 |
| Docket Number | 233 |
| Citation | 66 So. 925,11 Ala.App. 560 |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
| Parties | ANDERSON v. ANNISTON ELECTRIC & GAS CO. |
Appeal from City Court of Anniston; Thomas W. Coleman, Jr., Judge.
Action by M.N. Anderson against the Anniston Electric & Gas Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
See also, 6 So. 924.
Charles F. Douglass, of Anniston, for appellant.
Knox, Acker, Dixon & Sterne, of Anniston, for appellee.
The matters assigned as error do not show any ruling of the court injuriously affecting the substantial rights of the appellant that would authorize a reversal of the judgment, and in the assignment of errors the appellant complains of nothing except the action of the court on November 18, 1913, in refusing his motion for a new trial, and no appeal as authorized by statute is prosecuted from the decision or judgment of the court on this motion. Code, § 2846. The only appeal taken as shown by the appeal bond and the certificate of the clerk is from the judgment rendered September 30 1913, and all errors are assigned on the theory that the court erred in the subsequent judgment rendered in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial, from which judgment or order no appeal is prosecuted. The bill of exceptions is shown to have been presented to the trial judge more than 90 days after the judgment rendered on September 30, 1913. Generally an appeal brings up for review only the order appealed from. Dickens v. Dickens, 174 Ala. 345, 56 So. 809; Scient. Am. Co. v. Gillespie, 4 Ala.App. 590, 58 So. 756. There are well-considered cases holding that on an appeal from the final judgment subsequent orders are not reviewable. See 2 R.C.L. § 160, and authorities cited in note 6. But even if it should be conceded that the scope of the appeal in this case would permit a consideration of the assignment of errors relating entirely to a subsequent order, as an incident to the appeal taken, and however that may be, the errors assigned do not as we have said, present any meritorious question or any matter that would justify a reversal or require extended discussion of the case.
The charges urged upon us for review are only set out in the bill of exceptions as contained in and forming a part of the plaintiff's (appellant's) motion for a new trial which is followed by this recital: "The charges set out in the foregoing motion were presented to the court before the jury retired." For aught appearing, the charges were requested in bulk, and, unless all were good, there could be no reversal on that account. McCombs...
To continue reading
Request your trial