O'Neal v. Simonton

• Decision Date: 06 February 1896
• Citation: 109 Ala. 369,19 So. 8
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Parties: O'NEAL v. SIMONTON.

19 So. 8

109 Ala. 369

O'NEAL v. SIMONTON.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 6, 1896

Appeal from circuit court, Henry county; J. M. Carmichael, Judge.

Action by F. R. Simonton against W. C. O'Neal. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

H. L Martin, for appellant.

J. D Bell and Pearce & Pace, for appellee.

HARALSON J.

This was an action of forcible entry and unlawful detainer instituted on the 19th May, 1894, by the appellee, Simonton in a justice's court, against the appellant, O'Neal, for the recovery of the possession of a tract of land, fully described in the complaint. The abstract, on which we are asked to review the case states: "Said cause was tried in the justice court, on the 15th June, 1894, and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and from said judgment, on the same day, appellant appealed said cause to the circuit court, and at the spring term of said court, 1895, a trial was had in said cause, and the jury found in favor of appellee, and the court thereupon rendered a judgment in favor of appellee and against the appellant. The appellant assigns the following as errors: (1) The court erred in rendering judgment for appellee; (2) judgment entry is in improper words."

No bill of exceptions appears in the abstract, nor is the judgment set out; but the foregoing is all that appears in the abstract. We have nothing to review, and the judgment must be affirmed. It may be proper to add, that this court, under its rules, tries a cause on the abstract of the transcript, and will make no examination of the transcript, unless the appellee questions the correctness thereof by a printed counter abstract filed at the time of the submission of the cause, with appropriate references to the transcript by pages, showing wherein appellant's statement is incorrect or insufficient, in which case, and in no other, will the court verify the statements by reference to the transcript. Without a counter abstract, the transcript will not be inspected or referred to, after the submission of the cause. We are led to make these observations, that the practice may be the better and more generally understood, though the rule seems to be so explicit, as not to be susceptible of misunderstanding. It sometimes happens, that parties preparing their abstracts and counter abstracts, without setting out matter material to be considered, and acting under the apparent supposition that the court...