Hester v. Cantrell
| Decision Date | 01 December 1910 |
| Parties | HESTER ET AL. v. CANTRELL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Randolph County; S. L. Brewer, Judge.
Action by J. P. Cantrell against Mrs. I. M. Hester and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
R. J. Hooten, for appellants.
R. E. Taylor and E. M. Oliver, for appellee.
The bill of exceptions expressly purports to be, as it is, nothing other than the stenographic report of the trial below. It is, hence, constructed in patent violation of rule 32 of circuit court practice (Civ. Code 1907, p. 1526). It will be stricken. Gassenheimer & Co. v. Marietta Co., 127 Ala. 183, 28 So. 564; Sou. Ry. Co. v. Jackson, 133 Ala. 384, 31 So. 988; Woodward Iron Co. v. Herndon, 130 Ala. 364, 375, 376, 30 So. 370.
There is no error assigned as upon the record proper, so the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Irby v. Kaigler
...the rule, under similar conditions, in the case of Lucas v. Mays et al., 2 Ala. App. 497, 56 So. 593, and cited the case of Hester et al. v. Cantrell, supra, together with other cases, in support of our holding. original record in Lucas v. Mays et al., supra, shows that the evidence set out......
-
Clancy v. Taylor
... ... Southern Ry. Co. v. Jackson, 133 Ala. 384, ... 31 So. 988; Gassenheimer Paper Co. v. Marietta Paper ... Co., 127 Ala. 183, 28 So. 564; Hester v ... Cantrell, 169 Ala. 490, 53 So. 1009; Lucas v ... Mays, 2 Ala.App. 497, 56 So. 593; Irby v ... Kaigler, 6 Ala.App. 91, 60 So. 418; Owens ... ...
-
Turner v. Thornton
...So. 852. This court has expressly reserved the right to strike such bills of exceptions without motion or insistence of appellee. Hester v. Cantrell, supra; Gassenheimer Paper Co. v. Paper Co., supra. However willing the justice writing the opinion in any given case may be to disregard the ......
-
Higdon v. Warrant Warehouse Co.
...that, under the following authorities, the motion to strike must prevail. Irby v. Kaigler, 6 Ala.App. 91, 60 So. 418; Hester v. Cantrell, 169 Ala. 490, 53 So. 1009; Birmingham Nat. Bank v. Bradley, 134 Ala. 660, So. 1035; Chicago Portrait Co. v. Robbins, 155 Ala. 673, 45 So. 217. The errors......