Doughty v. City of Fayette, 6 Div. 74
Decision Date | 17 June 1965 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 74 |
Citation | 176 So.2d 481,278 Ala. 121 |
Parties | Roy V. DOUGHTY v. CITY OF FAYETTE et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
G. H. Downing, Vernon, for appellant.
David McKay Enslen, Nolen & Enslen, Fayette, and Martin, Balch, Bingham & Hawthorne, Birmingham, for appellees.
Appellant argues in brief that we should reverse the trial court because it erred in denying appellant's motion for new trial on the ground that the verdict was not sustained by the great preponderance of the evidence, but the ruling of the trial court on the motion for new trial is not before us because there is no assignment of error which asserts that the court erred in denying appellant's motion for new trial.
Appellant appears to consider that the assignments of error are sufficient to present for review the trial court's action in ruling on the motion for new trial, but the assignments are not adequate for this purpose. The holdings of this court are to the effect that such assignments present nothing for review because they do not allege error for failure to grant the motion for new trial or for any other ruling of the trial court.
In assigning errors, the appellant must specify the action of the trial court of which he would have review and revision. Kinnon v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 187 Ala. 480, 65 So. 397; Thomas v. Brook, 274 Ala. 462, 149 So.2d 809.
One of the appellees calls to our attention certain decisions of this court holding that the instant assignments are too general and cannot be considered.
There are six assignments in the instant case. The first is:
This assignment is substantially the same as assignment 3, which was held insufficient in King v. Jackson, 264 Ala. 339, 87 So.2d 623, and assignment 2, held insufficient in Mulkin v. McDonough Construction Co. of Ga., 266 Ala. 281, 95 So.2d 921.
The second assignment is:
This is substantially the same as assignment 1 which was disapproved in King v. Jackson, supra.
The third assignment is:
Assignment 3 in the instant case is a combination of assignments 2, 3, and 4 in King v. Jackson, supra, wherein each of them was held insufficient. We are of opinion that the combination of them in instant assignment 3 remains insufficient because no action of the trial court is specified as error.
The fourth assignment is:
Assignment 4 is substantially the same as assignment 1 which was held insufficient in the Mulkin case, supra.
The fifth assignment is:
Assignment 5 is substantially the same as assignment 4 held inadequate in King v. Jackson, supra.
The sixth assignment is:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pridgen v. Head, 4 Div. 247
...King v. Jackson, 264 Ala. 339, 87 So.2d 623, and cases cited; Randolph v. Kessler, 275 Ala. 73, 152 So.2d 138; Doughty v. City of Fayette, 278 Ala. 121, 176 So.2d 481; Accident Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Feely, 279 Ala. 74, 181 So.2d 889; Thompson v. State, 267 Ala. 22, 99 So.2d 198; State v. Ba......
-
Lonnie Russell Ford, Inc. v. Mitchell
...for review. Carlton v. Musicians Protective Ass'n, Local No. 479, 276 Ala. 128, 159 So.2d 831, and cases cited; Doughty v. City of Fayette, 278 Ala. 121, 176 So.2d 481; Smith v. Jackson, 277 Ala. 257, 169 So.2d 21. See Evergreen Heading Co. v. Skipper, 276 Ala. 623, 165 So.2d 705; Andrews v......
-
McCullar v. Conner, 8 Div. 416
...error which does not specify any ruling of the trial court which is claimed as error presents nothing for review. Doughty v. City of Fayette, 278 Ala. 121, 176 So.2d 481 (1965). But even assuming the validity of the assignment of error, it would avail appellant nothing. Appellant contends t......
-
State v. Barnhill
...King v. Jackson, 264 Ala. 339, 87 So.2d 623, and cases cited; Randolph v. Kessler, 275 Ala. 73, 152 So.2d 138; Doughty v. City of Fayette, 278 Ala. 121, 176 So.2d 481; Accident Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Feely, 279 Ala. 74, 181 So.2d 889; Thompson v. State, 267 Ala. 22, 99 So.2d The criticism ma......