Bell v. Burns
| Decision Date | 30 June 1921 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 490 |
| Parties | BELL v. BURNS. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, 1921
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Romaine Boyd, Judge.
Action by Vernie Burns, by her next friend, against C.F. Bell. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Acts 1911, p. 449, § 6. Affirmed.
Haley & Burgin & Jenkins, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Kenneth C. Charlton, of Birmingham, for appellee.
Error is asssigned upon the refusal of charges numbered 3 and 4 in appellant's motion for a new trial. We need not inquire as to the propositions of law asserted in these charges, for there is no bill of exceptions, nor is the court's oral charge set out in the record, as it should be. In this state of the record, reversible error cannot be affirmed of the trial court's ruling in respect of these charges. These charges may have been inapt to the case made by the evidence, or they may have been fully covered by the court's oral charge. One purpose of Act Sept. 25, 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 815), section 5364 of the Code, was to prevent reversals in cases of this sort--cases in this category.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lone Star Cement Co. of Louisiana v. Wilson
... ... They cannot be reviewed without a bill of ... exceptions showing that they are not abstract, but are ... supported by the evidence. Bell v. Burns, 206 Ala ... 465, 90 So. 491; Battle v. Wright, 217 Ala. 354, 116 ... So. 349; Macertney v. Gwin, 218 Ala. 529, 119 So ... 238; Levert ... ...
-
Ahrens-Rich Auto Co. v. Love
...of the trial court's ruling in respect to these charges. They may have been fully covered by the court's oral charge. Bell v. Burns, 206 Ala. 465, 90 So. 491. But might say we do not think the refusal of either of them would probably have been error anyway. Ala. City, Gadsden & A. Ry. Co. v......
-
McBride v. State
...of law, were covered by the court's oral charge. Code 1923, § 9509: Cofield v. State, 18 Ala.App. 12, 88 So. 353; Bell v. Burns, 206 Ala. 465, 90 So. 491. foregoing does not apply to the giving or refusing of the general affirmative charge. Where a defendant is entitled to general instructi......
-
Levert v. State, 6 Div. 520.
...the motion for new trial, and certain written charges. Southern Wood Preserving Co. v. McCamey, 218 Ala. 201, 118 So. 393; Bell v. Burns, 206 Ala. 465, 90 So. 491. appears no reversible error in the record. The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed. ANDERSON, C.J., and GARDNER and BOULDIN, JJ., co......