Carney v. M. C. Kiser Co.

• Decision Date: 15 November 1917
• Docket Number: 2 Div. 648
• Citation: Carney v. M. C. Kiser Co., 200 Ala. 527, 76 So. 853 (Ala. 1917)
• Parties: CARNEY v. M.C. KISER CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

76 So. 853

200 Ala. 527

CARNEY v. M.C. KISER CO.

2 Div. 648

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 15, 1917

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 &amp 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...