Patterson v. Holt, 5 Div. 276
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | BRICKEN, J. |
| Citation | 16 Ala.App. 439,78 So. 637 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 276 |
| Decision Date | 09 April 1918 |
| Parties | PATTERSON v. HOLT. |
78 So. 637
16 Ala.App. 439
PATTERSON
v.
HOLT.
5 Div. 276
Court of Appeals of Alabama
April 9, 1918
Appeal from Circuit Court, Elmore County; Leon McCord, Judge.
Action between Mrs. M.E. Patterson and Zeke Holt. From the judgment rendered, Mrs. Patterson appeals, and Holt moves to dismiss the appeal. Affirmed.
Frank W. Lull, of Wetumpka, Eugene Ballard, of Prattville, and W.P. McGaugh, of Montgomery, for appellant.
George F. Smoot and J.M. Holley, both of Wetumpka, for appellee.
BRICKEN, J.
This case is submitted on motion to dismiss the appeal and upon its merits. It affirmatively appears that the bill of exceptions was not presented to the trial judge within 90 days from the date of the rendition of the judgment, though it was presented within 90 days after the ruling and judgment of the court on the motion for a new trial; the bill of exceptions can therefore only be considered for the purpose of reviewing the action of the trial court on the motion for a new trial. McLeod v. Flourney, 3 Ala.App. 547, 57 So. 630. However, we are without authority to review the action of the trial court on the motion for a new trial, as no exception was reserved to the ruling of the court in this connection, and the action of the trial court on the motion for a new trial, will not be reviewed, unless the bill of the exceptions shows an exception to the action of the court. Acts 1915, p. 722; King v State, 75 So. 692, 694; Dorough v. Harrington & Sons, 148 Ala. 305, 42 So. 557.
It follows that the judgment of the lower court must be affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mangino v. Todd, 8 Div. 123.
...v. Justice, supra; Powell v. Folmar, supra; Bank of Tallassee v. Elmore Fertilizer Co., 16 Ala. App. 465, 78 So. 648; Patterson v. Holt, 16 Ala. App. 439, 78 So. 637; Benton v. State, 16 Ala. App. 192, 76 So. 476; Stover v. State, 204 Ala. 311, 85 So. 393. It is a rule of recognized standin......
-
Atlanta & St. A.B. Ry. Co. v. Hodges, 4 Div. 752.
...waived by the submission of the cause without a formal motion by the appellee to strike it from the file." See, also, Patterson v. Holt, 16 Ala. App. 439, 78 So. 637; Cassells' Mill et al. v. Strater Bros. G. Co., 166 Ala. 274, 51 So. 969; Cobb v. Owen, 150 Ala. 412, 43 So. 826. The motion ......
-
Lum Machinery & Supply Co. v. Short, 4 Div. 525
...78 So. 637 16 Ala.App. 439 LUM MACHINERY & SUPPLY CO. v. SHORT. 4 Div. 525Court of Appeals of AlabamaApril 9, Appeal from Circuit Court, Covington County; A.B. Foster, Judge. Detinue by the Lum Machinery & Supply Company against D.M. Short. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Aff......
-
Mangino v. Todd, 8 Div. 123.
...v. Justice, supra; Powell v. Folmar, supra; Bank of Tallassee v. Elmore Fertilizer Co., 16 Ala. App. 465, 78 So. 648; Patterson v. Holt, 16 Ala. App. 439, 78 So. 637; Benton v. State, 16 Ala. App. 192, 76 So. 476; Stover v. State, 204 Ala. 311, 85 So. 393. It is a rule of recognized standin......
-
Atlanta & St. A.B. Ry. Co. v. Hodges, 4 Div. 752.
...waived by the submission of the cause without a formal motion by the appellee to strike it from the file." See, also, Patterson v. Holt, 16 Ala. App. 439, 78 So. 637; Cassells' Mill et al. v. Strater Bros. G. Co., 166 Ala. 274, 51 So. 969; Cobb v. Owen, 150 Ala. 412, 43 So. 826. The motion ......
-
Lum Machinery & Supply Co. v. Short, 4 Div. 525
...78 So. 637 16 Ala.App. 439 LUM MACHINERY & SUPPLY CO. v. SHORT. 4 Div. 525Court of Appeals of AlabamaApril 9, Appeal from Circuit Court, Covington County; A.B. Foster, Judge. Detinue by the Lum Machinery & Supply Company against D.M. Short. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Aff......