Mobile Light & R. Co. v. Thomas
Decision Date | 13 November 1917 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 216 |
Citation | 77 So. 463,16 Ala.App. 313 |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Parties | MOBILE LIGHT & R. CO. v. THOMAS. [*] |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 15, 1918
Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Mobile County; Saffold Berney Judge.
Action by Elijah Thomas against the Mobile Light & Railroad Company.From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.Affirmed.
Harry T. Smith & Caffey, of Mobile, for appellant.
Webb McAlpine & Grove, of Mobile, for appellee.
This action was brought to recover damages for personal injury suffered by plaintiff, and damages to the wagon in which he was riding at the time he was struck by the defendant's street car.
There are 16 assignments of error.Nos. 1 and 2 are predicated upon rulings sustaining demurrers to certain pleas filed by the defendant.Nos. 3 and 16 assign as error certain rulings of the court upon the admission of testimony during the trial of the case.None of these assignments are insisted upon in brief of appellant's counsel.They must therefore be regarded as waived.L. & N.R.R. Co. v. Holland,173 Ala. 675, and cases cited on page 694, 55 So. 1001.
The remaining assignments seek to have this court to review the ruling of the trial court in the giving of written charges requested by the plaintiff and the refusal of written charges requested by the defendant.These charges do not appear in the record proper, but only in the bill of exceptions.On this state of the record, the assignments of error predicated upon them are not reviewable.General Acts 1915, p. 815;Malone v. State,76 So. 469;Carter v State,76 So. 468;Southern Ry. Co. v. Propst & Duckworth,76 So. 470;Dempsey v. State,72 So. 773.
Affirmed.
On Application for Rehearing.
The appellant questions the soundness of the holdings in the cases cited in the foregoing opinion, to the effect that charges which do not appear in the record proper, but appear in the bill of exceptions, are not properly presented for review.The ground on which appellant questions these holdings is that special charges requested by the parties and given or refused and properly indorsed as required by the statute are not made thereby a part of the record proper, and can only become a part of the record by being incorporated in the bill of exceptions.
The statute(Code 1907, § 5364) as amended by act approved September 25, 1915, provides:
Before the amendment of this section of the Code it was repeatedly held that written charges indorsed as required by the statute were a part of the record, but that it was incumbent upon the appellant who sought to review the giving or refusal of such charges to set them out in the bill of exceptions.Choate v. Ala. Gr. South. R.R. Co.,170 Ala. 591, 54 So. 507;W.U.T. Co. v. Pauley,157 Ala. 615, 47 So. 654;Gambill v. Fuqua,148 Ala. 459, 42 So. 735;Highland Ave. & Belt R.R. Co. v. South,112 Ala. 642, 20 So. 1003;Baker et al. v. Lauderdale & Worthy,14 Ala.App. 224, 69 So. 299;Clark v. State,14 Ala.App. 633, 72 So. 291.
In Gambill v. Fuqua, supra, it was said:
In Choate v. A.G.S.R.R. Co., supra, the court said:
...
To continue reading
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Bray v. State
... ... Rehearing ... Denied April 2, 1918 ... Appeal ... from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Norvelle R. Leigh, Jr., ... Thaddeus ... Bray, alias, was convicted of ... 6 Mayf.Dig. 82, § 1; Taylor v ... State, 112 Ala. 69, 20 So. 848; Mobile Light & R.R ... Co. v. Thomas, 77 So. 463 ... The ... judgment entry in this case recites ... ...
-
Ex parte Mobile Light & R. Co.
...the Mobile Light & Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment (77 So. 463), defendant brings certiorari. Judgment of Court of Appeals reversed, and cause remanded. Anderson, C.J., dissenting. Harry T. Smith & Caffey,......
-
Mobile Light & R. Co. v. Thomas
...Elijah Thomas against the Mobile Light & Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded. See, also, 77 So. 463; 78 So. Harry T. Smith & Caffey, of Mobile, for appellant. Webb, McAlpine & Grove, of Mobile, for appellee. PER CURIAM. This action was brou......
-
Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Gillis Mule Co.
... ... Co., 142 Ala. 475, 39 So. 87; Montgomery & West ... Point R.R. Co. v. Moore, 51 Ala. 394; Mobile & ... Girard R.R. Co. v. Copeland, 63 Ala. 219, 35 Am.Rep. 13 ... In an ... action ... 666, 30 So. 905; Wright v ... State, 3 Ala.App. 24, 58 So. 68; Mobile L. & R. Co ... v. Thomas, 16 Ala.App. 313, 77 So. 463 ... However, ... the exception cannot avail the defendant ... ...