Milner Coal & R. Co. v. Wiggins
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | McCLELLAN, C.J. |
| Citation | 143 Ala. 132,38 So. 1010 |
| Parties | MILNER COAL & RAILROAD CO. v. WIGGINS. |
| Decision Date | 10 January 1905 |
38 So. 1010
143 Ala. 132
MILNER COAL & RAILROAD CO.
v.
WIGGINS.
Supreme Court of Alabama
January 10, 1905
Appeal from City Court of Birmingham; William W. Wilkerson, Judge.
Action by Ed. Wiggins, pro ami, against the Milner Coal & Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals Affirmed.
Rudulph & Huddleston, for appellant.
Bowman, Harsh & Beddow, for appellee.
McCLELLAN, C.J.
One assignment of error is in the following words: "The court erred in giving each of the charges in writing requested by plaintiff and given by the court, and each of said charges are herewith assigned separately as error." Another is this: "The court erred in refusing each of the charges in writing requested by the defendant and refused by the court, and herewith assigns separately the refusal of each of said charges." Without considering whether these assignments of error would be sufficient to present the rulings of the court on these requests for instructions for review if these rulings were shown by the bill of exceptions, it will be sufficient to say in disposing of this part of the case that none of these charges, nor any rulings upon them, is shown by the bill of exceptions. The charges are all copied in this record, but not in or as a part of the bill of exceptions, and we therefore cannot review the court's rulings upon them. Nuckols v. State, 109 Ala. 2, 19 So. 504; Southern Ry. Co. v. Jones, 132 Ala. 437, 442-443, 31 So. 501.
So, too, in respect of defendant's motion for a new trial. Neither the motion, nor the court's action upon it, is shown by the bill of exceptions, and we therefore cannot review that action.
The exceptions reserved on the trial to rulings of the court on the admissibility of evidence are not insisted upon in the brief for appellant. Moreover, they seem to be without merit.
Affirmed.
TYSON, SIMPSON, and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Ry. Co. v. E.L. Kendall & Co., 323
...and for this reason nothing is presented for review by assignments of error predicated on this motion. Milner Coal & R.R. Co. v. Wiggins, 143 Ala. 132, 38 So. 1010. There is nothing in the record showing that motion was made to exclude the testimony of J.L. Kendall as to the market value of......
-
McPherson v. State, 4 Div. 611
...or refusing such requested instructions could not be had unless they were incorporated in the bill of exceptions. Milner Co. v. Wiggins, 143 Ala. 132, 38 So. 1010, among others. The fact that the error committed by the trial court in confining the jury to a conclusion of guilt or innocence ......
-
North Birmingham Lumber Co. v. Sims & White
...to the attention of the court the matters designated (Williams v. Coosa Co., 138 Ala. 673, 33 So. 1015; Milner, etc., Co. v. Wiggins, 143 Ala. 132, 38 So. 1010), yet page 9 of the transcript is no part of the bill of exceptions, and charges not set out in the bill of exceptions--although th......
-
Ex parte Mobile Light & R. Co., 1 Div. 29
...to the attention of the court the matters designated (Williams v. Coosa Co., 138 Ala. 673, 33 So. 1015; Milner, etc., Co. v. Wiggins, 143 Ala. 132, 38 So. 1010), yet page 9 of the transcript is no part of the bill of exceptions, and charges not set out in the bill of exceptions, although th......