King v. Hill & Shaffer Co.

Decision Date16 December 1909
Citation163 Ala. 422,51 So. 15
PartiesKING v. HILL & SHAFFER CO.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Tallapoosa County; B. M. Miller, Judge.

Action by Hill & Shaffer Company against W. H. Coker for certain personal property, in which suit Basil King intervened, claiming the property. From a judgment for plaintiff, claimant appeals. Affirmed.

J. W. Strother, for appellant.

Lackey & Bridges, for appellee.

MAYFIELD, J.

This cause is submitted on motion to strike bill of exceptions and upon its merits.

Section 3019 of the Code of 1907 provides as follows: "Bills of exceptions may be presented at any time within ninety days from the day on which the judgment is entered, and not afterwards; and all general, local, or special laws or rules of court in conflict with this section are repealed, abrogated, and annulled. The judge must endorse thereon and as a part of the bill, the true date of presenting, and the bill of exceptions must, if correct, be signed by him within ninety days thereafter."

It affirmatively appears that the bill was not presented within the time required by statute, as to either the main trial or the motion for a new trial, and it must therefore be stricken on appellee's motion. The judge had no right to receive it after the time for presenting had expired. The statute is explicit that it must be presented within 90 days, "and not afterwards."

The bill of exceptions being stricken, the record proper shows no reversible error, and hence the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

DOWDELL, C.J., and ANDERSON and SAYRE, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Leeth v. Kornman, Sawyer & Co.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • November 30, 1911
    ...L. M. Co. v. Canterbury, 169 Ala. 444, 53 So. 823; Baker v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co., 165 Ala. 466, 51 So. 796; King v. Hill & Shafer, 163 Ala. 422, 51 So. 15; Rainey v. Ridgeway, 151 Ala. 532, 43 So. An. Elec. & Gas Co. v. Cooper, 136 Ala. 418, 34 So. 931; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Malone, 116 Al......
  • Thacker v. City of Selma
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • February 5, 1918
    ...as prescribed by the statute. Petty v. Dill, 53 Ala. 641; Edinburgh L. & M. Co. v. Canterbury, 169 Ala. 444, 53 So. 823; King v. Hill, 163 Ala. 423, 51 So. 15; Smith v. State, 166 Ala. 26, So. 396; Rainey v. Ridgeway, 151 Ala. 532, 43 So. 843; Leeth v. Kornman, Sawyer & Co., 2 Ala.App. 311,......
  • National Pyrites & Copper Co. v. Williams
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • January 13, 1921
    ... ... Petty v. Dill, ... 53 Ala. 641; Edinburgh Co. v. Canterbury, 169 Ala ... 444, 53 So. 823; King v. Hill, 163 Ala. 423, 51 So ... 15; Smith v. State, 166 Ala. 24, 52 So. 396; ... Rainey v ... ...
  • McMillon v. Skelton
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • January 4, 1923
    ...judge within 90 days after the judgment, and cannot therefore be looked to in passing upon the rulings on the main trial. King v. Hill, 163 Ala. 422, 51 So. 15. It is that, though a bill of exceptions may not be signed or presented in time to review the original judgment in a cause, yet, if......
  • 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