Fuller v. Fair, 2 Div. 720.

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Citation206 Ala. 654,91 So. 591
Docket Number2 Div. 720.
PartiesFULLER v. FAIR.
Decision Date27 October 1921

91 So. 591

206 Ala. 654


2 Div. 720.

Supreme Court of Alabama

October 27, 1921

Rehearing Denied Nov. 24, 1921.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Bibb County; F. Lloyd Tate, Judge.

Ejectment by J. A. Fair against N. C. Fuller. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Gardner, J., dissenting. [91 So. 592]

Jerome Fuller and W. W. Lavender, both of Centerville, for appellant.

Stokely, Scrivner & Dominick, of Birmingham, for appellee.


It is well settled by the decisions of this court that, when bills of exceptions contain blanks for the insertion of documents or instruments introduced in evidence, the same will not be considered, unless the bill so describes or identifies them that the transcribing officer, unaided by memory, can readily and with certainty determine, from the description itself, what document or paper is referred to, without room for mistake. Anniston Mfg. Co. v. Sou. R. R. Co., 145 Ala. 351, 40 So. 965; Pearce v. Clements, 73 Ala. 256; Parsons v. Woodward, 73 Ala. 348. See, also, Jones v. First Nat. Bank (Ala. Sup.) 89 So. 437, and cases there collected.

"The record must be so complete, that a succeeding officer, coming into the place of the one before whom the business was transacted, cannot reasonably mistake what was done." Parsons v. Woodward, supra

The instruments, as set out in the transcript, were not so specifically described or identified in the bill of exceptions as to bring them within the requirement of the foregoing rule. They, or most of them, were merely described by the name of the parties and date, and fell short of that degree of certainty contemplated by the decisions of this court; and the references and recitals in the bill of exceptions are less definite and specific than in the case of Jones v. First National Bank, supra, which is the most recent, if not the most liberal, consideration of the rule. Moreover, should it be conceded that the reference to these documents was sufficient, we find no authority to the clerk for incorporating in the transcript-pages 38, 38 1/4, 38 1/2, and 38 3/4-the deed from H. K. W. Smith to Julia Smith and the one from H. A. Smith and wife to H. K. W. Smith, as there is no consent or instruction in the bill of exceptions that they could or should be so set out.

As the deeds must be stricken, we cannot consider the assignments of error relating to the introduction of same as evidence. While the bill of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Hamrick v. Town of Albertville, 8 Div. 404.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • April 12, 1934
    ......98, 68 So. 813;. Heath v. Lewis, 200 Ala. 509, 76 So. 451; Fuller. v. Fair, 206 Ala. 654, 91 So. 591. . . It is. recited in ... judgments is sought to be presented by the pleas of set-off. 2, 3, and 4, to which demurrer was sustained. Section 10175,. Code. The ... shown to have been done. Woodrow v. Hawving, 105. Ala. 240, 16 So. 720; Wood v. Wood, 119 Ala. 183, 24. So. 841. And the law of due enforcement ......
  • Forrester v. McFry, 7 Div. 256.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 11, 1934
    ...v. Logan, 50 Ala. 503; Parsons v. Woodward, 73 Ala. 348; Anniston Mfg. Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 145 Ala. 351, 40 So. 965; Fuller v. Fair, 206 Ala. 654, 91 So. 591; Jones v. White, 189 Ala. 622, 66 So. 605; Hamrick v. Albertville, 228 Ala. 666, 155 So. 87. That is not this situation. If the ......
  • Tennessee-Hermitage Nat. Bank v. Hagan, 8 Div. 986
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • November 22, 1928
    ...... Hermitage National Bank, defendant. . . "2. If the Jury believe from the evidence that the money. obtained on the ... Jones v. First Nat'l. Bank, 206 Ala. 203, 89 So. 437; Fuller v. Fair, 206 Ala. 654, 91. So. 591. This ancient rule, declared in ......
  • Chandler v. Owens, 7 Div. 487
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 17, 1938
    ...direction is insufficient as a proper identification under the authority of Forrester v. McFry, 229 Ala. 324, 157 So. 68; Fuller v. Fair, 206 Ala. 654, 91 So. 591, and be stricken therefrom. And, if so stricken, appellees invoke the rule that this court cannot review the trial court in givi......
  • 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