Peters v. Nolen
| Decision Date | 04 June 1914 |
| Docket Number | 119 |
| Citation | 10 Ala.App. 599,65 So. 699 |
| Parties | PETERS v. NOLEN. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied June 20, 1914
Appeal from Circuit Court, Tallapoosa County; W.W. Pearson, Judge.
Action by G.P. Nolen against E.M. Peters. From an order denying a motion to amend a judgment nunc pro tunc, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
M. Peters, of Alexander City, for appellant.
Riddle, Ellis & Riddle, of Columbiana, for appellee.
The original suit in which the appellee brought suit in detinue and assumpsit against appellant and recovered a judgment will be found reported in the name of the same parties to this appeal as appellant and appellee, respectively, in 3 Ala.App. 641, 57 So. 398. After the original judgment appealed from in the circuit court was corrected and affirmed on appeal here ( Peters v. Nolen, 3 Ala.App. 641, 57 So. 398), the appellant, who was the defendant in the circuit court, filed a motion in that court to amend the judgment there nunc pro tunc, and appeals from an order overruling the motion.
Aside from the fact that after this court had affirmed and corrected the judgment of the circuit court the judgment of that court became merged in the judgment of this court, and the lower court was without jurisdiction or authority to amend a judgment of this court, the ruling of the circuit court on the motion is not presented on this appeal so that it can be considered by us.
The bill of exceptions shows no ruling on the motion or exception thereto, and this is the only manner, under the uniform holdings of the Supreme Court, in which rulings of the trial court on motions can be presented for review to the appellate court. Barton v. Charter Gas Co., 154 Ala. 275, 45 So. 213; Mouton v. L. & N.R.R. Co., 128 Ala. 537, 29 So. 602; Allen v. Alston, 147 Ala. 609, 41 So. 159; Ewing v. Wofford, 122 Ala. 439, 25 So. 251.
Nothing is presented for review authorizing a reversal.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Brown v. Pittsburgh Life & Trust Co.
-
Clark v. State
... ... thereon. Weyms v. State, 69 So. 310; Ex parte ... Watters, 180 Ala. 523. 61 So. 904; Peters v. Nolen, ... 10 Ala.App. 599, 65 So. 699; Payne v. State, 10 ... Ala.App. 85, 65 So. 262; Stoudenmire v. State, 40 ... So. 48. [1] This rule ... ...
-
Weyms v. State
...not properly incorporated in the record, and not before us for review. Ex parte Watters et al., 180 Ala. 523, 61 So. 904 Peters v. Nolen, 10 Ala.App. 599, 65 So. 699; Payne v. State, 10 Ala.App. 85, 65 So. There is no error in the record, and the judgment appealed from must be affirmed. Aff......
- C.H. Minge & Co. v. Barrett Bros. Shipping Co.