McGriff v. McGriff, 6 Div. 785.
| Decision Date | 16 October 1941 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 785. |
| Citation | 242 Ala. 69,4 So.2d 507 |
| Parties | McGRIFF v. McGRIFF. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 27, 1941.
Tom B. Ward, Jr., and J. Monroe Ward, both of Tuscaloosa, for appellee.
J. T. Johnson, of Oneonta, for appellant.
This appeal is from the final decree rendered on a submission of the cause on pleading and proof, and is submitted here without suggestion of diminution of the record or motion for certiorari to perfect it under Supreme Court Rule 19.
Rule 19, supra, provides the parties, on the suggestion of a diminution of the record and motion for certiorari, a remedy to perfect the record, and it was the duty of appellant before submitting her case to pursue this remedy, but having submitted the case without doing so, the Court has no alternative but to dispose of the case on the record as it now stands.
Respondent's note of testimony shows that he submitted his case upon, among other things, the testimony of H. Leroy McGriff, Mrs. Josephine M. Henly, Marcus T. McGriff and Mrs. Grace B. McGriff. The testimony of these witnesses does not appear in the record.
Appellant assigned the following errors:
It appearing that the record does not contain all the evidence upon which the case was submitted to the trial court, we cannot review the findings on the facts. Hogg v. Jenifer Iron Co., 215 Ala. 683, 112 So. 207; Allen v. Allen, 223 Ala. 223, 135 So. 169; Wood v. Wood, 119 Ala. 183, 24 So. 841.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rice v. Tuscaloosa County
...4 So.2d 497 242 Ala. 62 RICE v. TUSCALOOSA COUNTY. 6 Div. 800.Supreme Court of AlabamaOctober 30, 1941 ... ...
-
Ruck v. Ruck
...476, 477, 21 So.2d 617; Gipson v. Hicks, 243 Ala. 617, 618, 11 So.2d 461; Linn v. Linn, 242 Ala. 688, 690, 8 So.2d 187; McGriff v. McGriff, 242 Ala. 69, 4 So.2d 507; Allen v. Allen, 223 Ala. 223, 225, 135 So. 169; Hogg v. Jenifer Iron Co., 215 Ala. 683, 112 So. 207; Wood v. Wood, 119 Ala. 1......
-
Eaton v. Shene, 6 Div. 472
...246 Ala. 476, 21 So.2d 617; Gipson v. Hicks, 243 Ala. 617, 11 So.2d 461; Linn v. Linn, 242 Ala. 688, 8 So.2d 187; McGriff v. McGriff, 242 Ala. 69, 4 So.2d 507; Allen v. Allen, 223 Ala. 223, 135 So. 169; Hogg v. Jenifer Iron Co., 215 Ala. 683, 112 so. 207; Wood v. Wood, 119 Ala. 183, 24 So. ......
-
Welch v. State
...than to dispose of the case on the record as it now stands.' Hogg v. Jenifer Iron Company, 215 Ala. 683, 112 So. 207; McGriff v. McGriff, 242 Ala. 69, 4 So.2d 507. '* * * if the appellant submits on the record without suggesting a diminution, he waives his right to certiorari to perfect the......