Cooley v. U.S. Savings & Loan Co.

Decision Date19 December 1901
Citation132 Ala. 590,31 So. 521
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from circuit court, Jefferson county; A. A. Coleman, Judge.

Action between the United States Savings & Loan Company and John L Cooley. From a judgment in favor of the loan company, Cooley appeals. Affirmed.

J. G Crews and Geo. A. Evans, for appellant.

White &amp Howze, for appellee.


A motion here made to strike the bill of exceptions from the record is based on the following facts appearing in the transcript: The case was tried at the spring term, 1900, of the circuit court of Jefferson county. Orders of court were made for extending time for signing a bill of exceptions, the last of which orders bears date as of July 23, 1900, and purports to extend the time 30 days from that date. By a writing dated July 27, 1900, counsel for the parties respectively, agreed to extend the time for signing to October 1, 1900. On October 1, 1900, the court made another order, purporting to extend time to November 15, 1900, and again on the last-named day it made an order purporting to further extend time for 30 days. The bill of exceptions was signed on November 24, 1900. The time fixed by law for beginning the fall term of that court is the fifth Monday after the third Monday in August. Practice Rule 30 (Code, p 1200) is as follows: "In all circuit and inferior courts of common-law jurisdiction, bills of exception may be signed by the presiding judge at any time during the term at which the trial or proceeding is had, or, by written consent of the parties, or their counsel, filed in the cause, at any time before the next succeeding term of such court, and not afterwards." The latter clause of this rule is prohibitory. Under it the agreement of counsel was ineffective to extend the time for signing the bill of exceptions beyond the beginning of the fall term of court. Thereafter the agreement was functus officio, the extension was cut off, and the court was without power to revive it at a later day. The statute empowers the judge in vacation to make extensions, but it intends his action shall be taken before expiration of the time previously fixed, so as to preserve continuity of the period during which there could have been a proper signing. This construction is as well applicable to section 619 of the Code as to the former statute, which confined his authority in vacation to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Dowling-Martin Grocery Co. v. J.C. Lysle Milling Co.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • November 27, 1919
    ... ... We received your wire requesting us to quote you price on ... White Crest. We promptly wired you as per the ... ...
  • Moss v. Mosley
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • February 6, 1906
    ... ... exceptions, and this brings us to a consideration of the ... motion made by the appellee to strike the ... pertaining to circuit and inferior courts. Cooley v. U.S ... Savings & Loan Associations, 132 Ala. 590, 31 So. 521; ... ...
  • Harton v. Town of Avondale
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • July 6, 1906
    ... ... rule 30, applies only to extensions by agreement. Cooley ... v. U.S. Savings & Loan Ass'n, 132 Ala. 590, 592, 31 ... So. 521. The ... ...
  • Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Ashley
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • February 11, 1909
    ... ... statute cited. Cooley v. U.S. L. Ass'n, 132 Ala ... 590, 31 So. 521. The extension in ... so convinced of its unreasonableness as to warrant us in ... reversing the trial court. There was evidence before the jury ... ...
  • 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