Fuller v. Fair, 2 Div. 720.

• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama
• Citation: 206 Ala. 654,91 So. 591
• Docket Number: 2 Div. 720.
• Parties: FULLER v. FAIR.
• Decision Date: 27 October 1921

91 So. 591

206 Ala. 654

FULLER
v.
FAIR.

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.

ANDERSON, C.J.

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...