Duckett v. State, 8 Div. 658
| Citation | 257 Ala. 589,60 So.2d 357 |
| Decision Date | 27 August 1952 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 658 |
| Parties | DUCKETT v. STATE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Harold T. Pounders, Florence, for petitioner.
Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., opposed
Petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review the judgment and opinion of that court in Duckett v. State, 60 So.2d 357.
The petition is not on transcript paper, as required by Supreme Court Rule 36, Code 1940, Title 7, Appendix, and we have no alternative but to strike it. So ordered. Stovall v. Stovall, Ala.Sup., 57 So.2d 641; Bates v. General Steel Tank Co., 256 Ala. 466, 55 So.2d 218; Maddox v. City of Birmingham, 255 Ala. 440, 52 So.2d 166; Nix v. State, 251 Ala. 1, 36 So.2d 456; Barnett v. Patillo, 251 Ala. 1, 36 So.2d 451; Anderson v. State, 251 Ala. 32, 36 So.2d 244; Farley v. State, 251 Ala. 391, 37 So.2d 440; Johns v. Thomas H. Vaughn & Co., 251 Ala. 489, 38 So.2d 21; Haney v. State, 250 Ala. 664, 36 So.2d 117; Allen v. State, 249 Ala. 201, 30 So.2d 483; Peterson v. State, 248 Ala. 179, 27 So.2d 30. See Ex parte Wood, 215 Ala. 280, 110 So. 409.
Petition stricken.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hochman v. State, 1 Div. 700
...because not presented on transcript paper as required by Revised Supreme Court Rule 32, Code 1940, Title 7, Appendix. Duckett v. State, 257 Ala. 589, 60 So.2d 357; Stovall v. State, 257 Ala. 116, 57 So.2d 641; Bates v. General Steel Tank Co., 256 Ala. 466, 55 So.2d 218; Maddox v. City of Bi......
-
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Korneghy
...by Supreme Court Rule 36, Code 1940, Title 7 Appendix, and we have no alternative but to strike it. It is so ordered. Duckett v. State, 257 Ala. 589, 60 So.2d 357; Stovall v. State, 257 Ala. 116, 57 So.2d 641; Bates v. General Steel Tank Co., 256 Ala. 466, 55 So.2d 218; Maddox v. City of Bi......
-
Boyd v. State
...Amason, 267 Ala. 654, 104 So.2d 719; Ladd v. State, 266 Ala. 586, 98 So.2d 59; Smith v. State, 264 Ala. 264, 86 So.2d 842; Duckett v. State, 257 Ala. 589, 60 So.2d 357; Stovall v. State, 257 Ala. 124, 57 So.2d Petition stricken. LIVINGSTON, C. J., and MERRILL and COLEMAN, JJ., concur. ...
-
Stinson v. State, 8 Div. 110
...265 Ala. 588, 93 So.2d 439; Conley v. State, 265 Ala. 450, 92 So.2d 9; Williams v. State, 258 Ala. 638, 64 So.2d 617; Duckett v. State, 257 Ala. 589, 60 So.2d 357, and authorities cited in those As we see it, nothing would be gained by discussing the merits of the petition. Anything said wo......