Eady v. Stewart Dredging & Const. Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 25 January 1985 |
| Citation | 463 So.2d 156 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Parties | Richard EADY, Individually and d/b/a Eady Sand & Gravel v. STEWART DREDGING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. 83-1255. |
J.B. Nix, Jr., Evergreen, for appellants.
William D. Melton, Evergreen, for appellee.
Plaintiff, Stewart Dredging and Construction Company, Inc., brought suit to recover sums due for work and labor done and materials furnished. The case was tried without a jury on April 5, 1984. The defendant, Richard Eady, d/b/a Eady Sand and Gravel, before resting his case, sought a continuance in order to locate a witness, Larry Parker. The defendant contends that the court granted a continuance for the reason defendant advanced. The trial court granted a continuance, but made it clear that the reason for granting the continuance was not so the defense could locate Mr. Parker:
The record and briefs fail to specify what, if anything, happened until on June 19, 1984, judgment was entered for the plaintiff. The defendant then brought this appeal.
Appellant's brief contains no statement of the issue presented nor any citation of authority in support of his contentions concerning that issue, as required by A.R.App.P. 28(a)(3). The short argument by appellant, again presented without authority, also fails to set forth any issue. Only in the prayer for relief is there an indication of the issue appellant raises:
"Appellant respectfully represents to this Court that the Trial Court should have re-set this case to a date certain for the taking of the testimony of the additional witness for Defendant and failing to [do] so ... was reversible error."
Failure to comply with A.R.App.P. 28(a)(3) has been held to be a failure to properly present an issue for appellate review. Mitchell v. State, 450 So.2d 140 (Ala.Civ.App.1984). Although the spirit of the appellate rules is to reach a decision on the merits as opposed to disposing of a case on procedural technicalities, A.R.App.P. 1, this Court's task in deciding the case on the merits is made extremely difficult when the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State
...(Ala.Civ.App.1982); William Wilson Enterprises, Inc. v. Napier, 395 So.2d 89 (Ala.Civ.App.1981)." See also, Eady v. Steward Dredging & Construction Company, 463 So.2d 156 (Ala.1985). In the case at bar, the argument section of appellant's brief essentially consisted of nothing more than a s......
-
Kitchens v. Maye
...not be reversed unless there has been an abuse of discretion. Scullin v. Cameron, 518 So.2d 695, 698 (Ala.1987); Eady v. Stewart Dredging & Constr. Co., 463 So.2d 156 (Ala.1985); Madison v. Weldon, 446 So.2d 21 (Ala.1984). In the circumstances of this case, the trial court did not abuse its......
-
Adams v. Robertson
...Respondent Liberty National Life Insurance Company 4, n. 2 (citing Ala. Rule App. Proc. 28(a)(3)), and Eady v. Stewart Dredging & Construction Co., Inc., 463 So. 2d 156, 157 (Ala. 1985); Brief for Respondent Robertson 16, n. 12 (citing Eady ). Petitioners have not even responded to that 2 R......
-
McLeod v. McLeod
...denied. We will address only those issues for which supporting authorities have been cited to the court. Eady v. Stewart Dredging and Construction Co., 463 So.2d 156 (Ala.1985). See Stover v. Alabama Farm Bureau Insurance Co., 467 So.2d 251 (Ala.1985); In re Gunn, 467 So.2d 963 AFFIRMED. BR......