Hood v. Pioneer Min. & Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 27 April 1892
• Citation: 95 Ala. 461,11 So. 10
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Parties: HOOD v. PIONEER MIN. & MANUF'G CO.

11 So. 10

95 Ala. 461

HOOD v. PIONEER MIN. & MANUF'G CO.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 27, 1892

Appeal from circuit court, Jefferson county; JAMES B. HEAD, Judge.

Action by Samuel J. Hood, as administrator of J. J. George deceased, against the Pioneer Mining & Manufacturing Company for the wrongful death of plaintiff's intestate. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

This was an action brought by the appellant, as administrator of J. J. George, deceased, against the appellee, and sought to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff's intestate while employed by the defendant and engaged in such employment, which injuries resulted in the death of said intestate, and are alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. There were many exceptions reserved to the rulings of the lower court, but under the decision of this court, it is not deemed necessary to set them out in detail. The cause being tried without the intervention of a jury, judgment was rendered for the defendant. The plaintiff brings this appeal, and assigns as error the various rulings of the lower court.

Martin & McEachin, for appellant.

Webb & Tillman, for appellee.

COLEMAN J.

The case was tried by the court under the statute, without the intervention of a jury. The judgment, in our opinion, must be affirmed for several reasons. The bill of exceptions does not purport to set out all the evidence. It was declared in Griggs v. State, 58 Ala. 425, that "where certain evidence is set out in the bill of exceptions, but it is not expressly stated that it is all the evidence given, the appellate court cannot hold that the bill of exceptions contains all the evidence." We have uniformly held to the rule that unless the bill of exceptions showed that all, or substantially all, the evidence was set out, this court would presume, in order to sustain the ruling of the lower court, there was other sufficient evidence before the court not stated in the bill of exceptions.

The act to regulate the practice and proceedings in civil cases in the circuit court of Jefferson county, and in the supreme court on appeal from judgments rendered in said cases, (see Acts 1888-89, p. 797, § 7,) provides that "either party may, by bill of exceptions, also present on appeal, for review, the conclusions and judgments of the court upon the evidence," etc. The record fails to disclose that there was any...