Calvert v. Calvert, 1 Div. 689

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtGOODWYN; LIVINGSTON
Citation265 Ala. 529,92 So.2d 891
Docket Number1 Div. 689
Decision Date21 February 1957
PartiesEstelle S. CALVERT v. Jasper Augustus CALVERT.

Groves C. Hillard, Mobile, for appellant.

Howell & Johnston and Irvin J. Langford, Mobile, for appellee.

GOODWYN, Justice.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment rendered by the circuit court of Mobile County in favor of the defendant. The suit seeks recovery of past due installments of alimony awarded by decree of the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia.

The judgment appealed from was rendered on March 5, 1956. The appeal was taken on September 4, 1956, within the six months allowed, Code 1940, Tit. 7, § 788, and the certificate of appeal was filed here on September 5, 1956. The transcript of the record was filed on December 26, 1956. Submission was had on February 6, 1957, on appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal and on the merits.

One of the grounds of the motion to dismiss is that the transcript was not timely filed in this court. We have no alternative but to grant the motion.

The appeal is on the record proper, there being no transcript of the evidence in the record. In the recent case of Duke v. State, 264 Ala. 624, 89 So.2d 102, we held that where an appeal is on the record proper without a transcript of the evidence, Supreme Court Rule 37, Revised Rules effective June 1, 1955, as amended on February 17, 1956 (263 Ala. XXI), requires that the transcript of the record be filed in this court within sixty days after the taking of the appeal. Although that case was a criminal proceeding, the same rule applies to appeals in civil cases at law.

As already noted the appeal was taken on September 4, 1956, and the record was not filed here until December 26, 1956. That is considerably longer than the sixty days allowed.

We here observe that we find nothing in the record to indicate that any request was made for extension of time for filing the transcript of the record. Nor do we find anything indicating that an attempt was made to procure a transcript of the evidence in the trial court as provided by those acts codified as §§ 827(1) to 827(6), Tit. 7, Code 1940, Pocket Part.

In an obvious attempt to avoid the effect of not including a transcript of the evidence in the record, counsel for the parties, under date of December 21, 1956, addressed the following communication to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Mobile County:

'It is stipulated and agreed by and between the parties in the above styled cause that the documentary evidence which was submitted by agreement at the trial of the cause, be forwarded by you, as Clerk of the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama, to the Supreme Court of Alabama for use on the appeal which has been taken by Estelle S. Calvert, appellant.'

Pursuant to this directive there was filed in this court on December 27, 1956, the documentary evidence in its original form. What was said in Maryland Casualty Co. v. Mayfield, 225 Ala. 449, 452, 143 So. 465, 467, makes it clear that we cannot consider this documentary evidence. As there said:

'We are confronted here with the fact that the policy contract was not transcribed into and made a part of the bill of exceptions, but in lieu thereof a paper writing, apparently the original policy, attached to the margin of page 27 of the record, with the statement in brackets, presumably by the clerk of the court: 'The above printed contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was authorized and ordered to be used in this transcript by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Shelby County v. Baker, 7 Div. 386
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • April 9, 1959
    ...Rule 41 (Old Rule 47) has not been complied with in this respect. Starkey v. Bryant, 257 Ala. 557, 59 So.2d 796. See also Calvert v. Calvert, 265 Ala. 529, 92 So.2d 891. There is still another reason why we think this assignment must fall. It is true, as appellant contends, that the amount ......
  • Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Ala. v. Jackson, CROSS-BLUE
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • March 9, 1965
    ...are necessarily excluded--designatio unius est exclusio alterius--both from what was before the court below and here. Calvert v. Calvert, 265 Ala. 529, 92 So.2d 891. We quote from Bradley v. Andress, '* * * The settled rule is, that whenever it is intended to incorporate in a decree or bill......
  • Lovelady v. Thomas
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 22, 1962 request for an extension of time in the lower court as required by Supreme Court Rule 37, as amended, (263 Ala. XXI). Calvert v. Calvert, 265 Ala. 529, 92 So.2d 891; Duke v. State, 264 Ala. 624, 89 So.2d The transcript of the record should have been filed here December 26, 1961. (That is......
  • Ex parte O'Connell
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 21, 1957
    ......92 So.2d 911. 265 Ala. 526. Ex parte John B. O'CONNELL. 1" Div. 676. Supreme Court of Alabama. Feb. 21, 1957.     \xC2"......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT