Clark v. Henderson
Decision Date | 18 March 1943 |
Docket Number | 4 Div. 277. |
Citation | 244 Ala. 237,12 So.2d 743 |
Parties | CLARK v. HENDERSON. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied April 15, 1943. [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Powell & Fuller, of Andalusia, for appellant.
Mizell & Pearson, of Andalusia, for appellee.
The submission was on the motion and on merits. The grounds of the motion to strike the bill of exceptions, among other things, are:
The original bill of exceptions is before us. It concludes as follows:
The endorsement of the clerk above set out is in accordance with the statute. No question is raised as to the correctness of the respective dates. The provisions of the statute touching this motion are codified and annotated in Code of 1940, T. 7 § 822.
The answer and affidavits of the appellant attorney in opposition to the motion to strike the bill of exceptions show the material and controlling facts. The decisions as to perfection of bills of exception are well understood.
The judgment in question is that pronounced by the court. Russell v. State, 202 Ala. 21, 79 So. 359.
The ninety days in which a bill of exceptions may be filed, within the statute, runs from the final order on final motion. Lambert v. Bowman-Moore Hat Co., 223 Ala. 1, 136 So. 740. The bill of exceptions may not be corrected so as to incorporate new exceptions or grounds of error. Illinois Central R. Co. v. Posey, 212 Ala. 10, 101 So. 644. The time for presenting the bill of exceptions embraces the last day, the first day being excluded. Rice v. J. H. Beavers & Co., 196 Ala. 355, 71 So. 659. Daylight saving time does not shorten this required time. Ellard v. Goodall, 203 Ala. 476, 83 So. 568. Such are the rulings of long standing relative to the filing of bills of exception.
It is further decided: [Italics and brackets supplied.]
We find no decision on the motion insisted upon by appellant, but Code 1940, T. 7, § 822, p. 697, carries the following annotations:
Such are the analogies to be found under the decisions construing the statute in question. Pertinent provisions of the statute are Code 1940, T. 7, §§ 822, 824 and 827, which are to be construed in pari materia, that the ends of justice may be met.
We find that no injustice has been done the appellee by the manner or method of presentation of the bill of exceptions in the instant case, and in the failure to furnish to the adverse party or his attorney a copy thereof. The failure to endorse a certificate thereon to that effect, over his signature, worked no hardship as it is shown appellee had the bill of exceptions in his possession and corrected the same before it was returned to the trial judge for his signature. Code 1940, T. 7, § 822. The adverse parties were duly informed of the contents of the bill of exceptions presented, signed and filed, as required by law. The power to strike a bill of exceptions is contained in Code 1940, T. 7, § 827. This is shown by the answer of appellant to the motion to strike the bill of exceptions, as follows:
The old provisions of the Code of 1907 were revised in the Code of 1923, § 6433, and the Code 1940, T. 7, § 822 has been amended as indicated in the editor's note, at page 692, where it is said:
And § 827 of T. 7, Code 1940, p. 703, is as follows: "The appellate court may strike a bill of exceptions from the record or file because not presented or signed within the time required by law, but shall not do so ex mero motu, but only on motion of a party to the record or his attorney; the object and effect of this statute being to allow parties to waive or consent for the time of signing bills of exception."
And the Editor's note follows:
The case of Hudson v. State, 243 Ala. 271, 9 So.2d 757 was to the effect that a bill of exceptions...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
American Life Ins. Co. v. Anderson
...a part of the record. And when the appeal was considered, we treated the record as containing a note of testimony. In Clark v. Henderson, 244 Ala. 237, 12 So.2d 743, bill of exceptions was stricken on motion made when the bill of exceptions was, in fact, filed after the time provided by law......
-
Spurling v. Fillingim
... ... accompanied by a showing that the appellee was denied the ... right to examine and make objections to the bill. Clark ... v. Henderson, Ala.Sup., 12 So.2d 743. No such showing is ... made. The motion to strike is, therefore, not well taken and ... will be denied ... ...
-
Stremming Veneer Co. v. Jacksonville Blow Pipe Co.
...of this carbon copy. The notice to produce on the trial or before the trial must be such as will enable a compliance. Clark v. Henderson, 244 Ala. 237(17), 12 So.2d 743; Sovereign Camp W.O.W. v. Ward, 196 Ala. 327(4), 71 So. 404; Thomas Bros. v. Williams, 170 Ala. 522, 54 So. 494. That prin......
- Oliver v. Oliver, 4 Div. 271.