National Surety Co. v. O'Connell
Decision Date | 16 January 1919 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 82 |
Parties | NATIONAL SURETY CO. v. O'CONNELL. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
Action by John C. O'Connell against the National Surety Company on the bond given by one Wilson as principal and said Company as surety. There was a judgment of the Court of Appeals (81 So. 146) affirming a judgment, from which the Surety Company had appealed, and the Surety Company brings certiorari. Writ denied.
Armbrecht, Johnston & McMillan and J. Osmond Middleton, all of Mobile, for appellant.
Gaillard, Mahorner & Arnold, of Mobile, for appellee.
Upon the consideration of this application, we are of the opinion that the decision of the Court of Appeals, 81 So. 146, is correct in the final result, and the writ is denied. We must not be understood, however, as sanctioning the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in so far as it reviews or would revise the ruling upon motion to strike nonrecoverable items or immaterial averments from the complaint, as we have a long line of decisions holding that the ruling upon such motions is not revisable by this court, and that advantage must be had by objecting to the evidence or by special instructions. L. & N.R.R. v. Fletcher, 194 Ala. 259, 69 So. 634; Bixby v. Evans, 174 Ala. 571, 57 So. 39; So. R.R. v. Coleman, 153 Ala. 266, 44 So. 837; Woodstock v. Stockdale, 143 Ala. 550, 39 So. 335, 5 Ann.Cas. 578; Vandiver v. Waller, 143 Ala. 411, 39 So. 136; Marx v. Miller, 134 Ala. 347, 32 So. 765; Columbus R.R. v. Bridges, 86 Ala. 448, 5 So. 864, 11 Am.St.Rep. 58; Goldsmith v. Picard, 27 Ala. 142. The Act of 1915, p. 598, does not change or abrogate this rule. It merely dispenses with the necessity of setting written motions out in the bill of exceptions or of excepting to the ruling upon same, but does not enlarge as to what would or would not be reversible error as to the action taken upon same by the trial court; in other words, it does not make rulings upon same that were not heretofore revisable upon appeal reviewable since the enactment of said statute.
Writ denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wootten v. Vaughn
... ... 932; McGough v. Sweetser, 97 ... Ala. 361, 364, 12 So. 162, 19 L.R.A. 470. In First ... National Bank v. Elliott, 125 Ala. 646, 659, 27 So. 7, ... 47 L.R.A. 742, 82 Am.St.Rep. 268, the court held ... ...
-
International Union, United Auto., Aircraft and Agr. Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO) v. Palmer
... ... Mazer v. Brown, 259 Ala. 449, 66 So.2d 561; National Surety Co. v. O'Connell, 16 Ala.App. 654, 81 So. 146, certiorari denied 202 Ala. 684, 81 So. 660 ... ...
-
Southern Ry. Co. v. Penny
... ... motions is not revisable by this court. National Surety ... Co. v. O'Connell, 202 Ala. 684, 81 So. 660 ... The ... seventeenth ... ...
-
Mazer v. Brown, 6 Div. 469
...trial court which is not subject to review on appeal. Woodstock Iron Works v. Stockdale, 143 Ala. 550, 39 So. 335; National Surety Co. v. O'Connell, 202 Ala. 684, 81 So. 660; Blumberg v. Speilberger, 209 Ala. 278, 96 So. 191. Appellant's contention in that respect cannot be In his opening s......