Pippin v. Perry
Decision Date | 27 October 1921 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 267. |
Citation | 91 So. 307,206 Ala. 582 |
Parties | PIPPIN v. PERRY. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; C. P. Almon, Judge.
Ejectment by F. M. Perry against Lee Pippin. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Simpson & Simpson, of Florence, for appellant.
Mitchell & Hughston, of Florence, for appellee.
Statutory ejectment, instituted by appellee against appellant. The plaintiff prevailed in a judgment entered March 1, 1920; but, the bill of exceptions not being presented to the trial judge within the 90 days prescribed by law (Code, § 3019), it cannot be considered for purposes of review of the main trial. A motion for new trial was filed on or before March 4, 1920, and the court overruled the motion on March 27, 1920.
Over the signature of the trial judge, this appears as indorsed on or appended to the bill of exceptions, the signature and approval of the bill being set in above at the end of the bill:
It is manifest that the matter set out over the signature of the presiding judge is the recital of a past fact or act; not the memorial of indorsement required by the statute (section 3019) as the exclusive means for evidencing the fact and the date of presentation contemplated by the statute. Box V. Sou Ry. Co., 184 Ala. 598, 64 So. 69. The motion to strike, to entirely eliminate, what purports to be a bill of exceptions in this transcript, must be, and it is, granted. If the bill of exceptions, as the basis for review of the motion for new trial (not the main trial), had been indorsed by the presiding judge as presented on June 24, 1920, it would then have served the purposes for a review of the action of the court in overruling the motion for new trial which action was taken March 27, 1920, within 90 days before June 24, 1920. There is, in short, no indorsement of presentation on June 24, 1920, or on any other date that was within 90 days of the date of overruling the motion for new trial.
The complaint was not defective in its description of the land-an island in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co. v. Lowe
... ... reasons we will now state. Massey v. Pentecost, 206 ... Ala. 411, 90 So. 866, 868; Pippin v. Perry, 206 Ala ... 582, 91 So. 307; Code 1907, §§ 3019, 3020. The sole grounds ... of the original motion were that it had "a meritorious ... ...
-
J.H. Arnold & Co. v. Jordan
...69 So. 102, Nat. Pyrites & Copper Co. v. Williams, 206 Ala. 4, 89 So. 291, Sorsby v. Wilkerson, 206 Ala. 191, 89 So. 657, Pippin v. Perry, 206 Ala. 582, 91 So. 307, Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co. v. Lowe, Ala. 12, 93 So. 765, Shaw v. Knight, 212 Ala. 356, 102 So. 701, and General Ordna......
-
Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Posey
... ... in Tapia v. Williams, 172 Ala. 18, 54 So. 613, ... contemplates. Section 3019, Code 1907; Pippin v ... Perry, 206 Ala. 582, 91 So. 307; A. C. L. v ... Burkett, 207 Ala. 344, 92 So. 456; Sorsby v ... Wilkerson, 206 Ala. 190, 89 So 657, and ... ...
-
Cay v. Ferrell
...Sneed, 174 Ala. 113, 56 So. 532, has been modified or explained in later cases. Lessley v. Prater, 200 Ala. 43, 75 So. 355; Pippin v. Perry, 206 Ala. 582, 91 So. 307; Riddle v. Hanson, 208 Ala. 474, 94 So. But whether there is any proper distinction in this respect between the sufficiency o......