Carney v. M. C. Kiser Co.

Decision Date15 November 1917
Docket Number2 Div. 648
Citation76 So. 853,200 Ala. 527
PartiesCARNEY v. M.C. KISER CO.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Choctaw County; Thomas H. Smith, Judge.

Suit between D.M. Carney and the M.C. Kiser Company. From the decree rendered, Carney appeals. Affirmed.

Gray & Dansby, of Butler, and C.R. Gavin, of Laurel, Miss., for appellant.

Wm. D. Dunn, of Grove Hill, for appellee.

THOMAS, J.

We find no assignment or errors on the record. The statutory requirements are (1) that appellant state concisely in writing in what the error complained of consists (Code 1907, rule 1, p. 1506); (2) that the assignment must be written upon the transcript; that it need not be signed by counsel, though it is more regular in form if so sign d (Amerson v. Corona Coal & Iron Co., 194 Ala. 175, 69 So. 601); (3) that the ruling or error complained of must appear on the page of the record as indicated in the assignment of error, or be otherwise sufficiently identified. If it is not thus sufficiently identified it does not invoke review of any particular ruling. Crews & Green v. Parker, 192 Ala. 383, 387, 68 So. 287.

Of the sufficiency of an assignment of error in equity cases, this court has recently declared:

"As early as Brahan v. Collins, Minor, 169, this court declined to accept, as the requisite specification of error, a general undesignating assertion of error by an appellant. The only relaxation the practice has had is in equity cases, where the error relied on affected the whole decree. Robinson v. Murphy, 69 Ala. 543, 546." Kinnon, as Adm'r, v. L. & N.R.R. Co., 187 Ala. 480, 482, 65 So. 397; Dickens v. Dickens, 174 Ala. 345, 351, 56 So. 809.

As a result of the failure to comply with the rule governing the assignment of errors, no question is here presented for determination. The decree of the chancery court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C.J., and MAYFIELD and SOMERVILLE, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Nostrand v. Little, 34451
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 20 Abril 1961
    ... ... Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 187 Ala. 480, 65 So. 397; Carney v. M. C. Kiser Co., 200 Ala. 527, 76 So. 853; Hall v. Pearce, 209 Ala. 397, 399, 96 So. 608; ... Page 123 ... Jackson Lumber Co. v. Butler, 244 ... ...
  • Ex parte Hines
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 10 Junio 1920
    ... ... 1506; Gay v. Hester, ... 164 Ala. 651, 51 So. 329; Amerson v. Corona C. & I ... Co., 194 Ala. 175, 69 So. 601; Carney v. M.C. Kiser ... Co., 200 Ala. 527, 76 So. 853; Crews & Green v ... Parker, 192 Ala. 383, 68 So. 287; Nichols v ... Hardegree, 79 So. 598; ... ...
  • Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Adory
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 11 Junio 1945
    ...and precisely raised in the assignments of error, Kinnon v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 187 Ala. 480, 65 So. 397; Carney v. M. C. Kiser Co., 200 Ala. 527, 76 So. 853; Hall v. Pearce, 209 Ala. 397, 399, 96 So. 608; Jackson Lumber Co. v. Butler, 244 Ala. 348, 13 So.2d 294, 298. Since the State ......
  • Oden v. Vaughn
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 13 Mayo 1920
    ... ... individual capacity and not as administratrix of the estate ... of A.A. Oden, deceased. Rule 1, Sup.Ct.Prac. (page 1506, ... Civil Code); Carney v. M.C. Kiser Co., 200 Ala. 527, ... 76 So. 853. As to the sufficiency of the assignment of error, ... it will be noted that it is averred in the ... ...
  • 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