Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Minderhout

• Decision Date: 10 February 1916
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 260
• Citation: 195 Ala. 420,71 So. 91
• Parties: POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE CO. v. MINDERHOUT.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

71 So. 91

195 Ala. 420

POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE CO. v. MINDERHOUT.

6 Div. 260

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 10, 1916

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

Action by Mrs. Leila Minderhout against the Postal Telegraph-Cable Company. A judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (71 So. 89), and defendant petitions for certiorari. Writ denied.

Cabaniss & Bowie, of Birmingham, for appellant.

A.G. &amp E.D. Smith, of Birmingham, for appellee.

ANDERSON C.J.

While there has heretofore been some division among the members of the court as to questions that would be reviewed by this court upon certiorari to the Court of Appeals, the rule has been laid down in repeated decisions and applied in many instances, where the writ was denied and no opinion was prepared, to the effect that we would not review the finding of the Court of Appeals upon the facts, or in the application of the law to the facts. Kirkwood v. State, 184 Ala 9, 63 So. 990; Ex parte State, 181 Ala. 4, 61 So. 53; Ex parte Savannah Williams, 182 Ala. 34, 62 So. 63; Ex parte Western Union Co., 183 Ala. 451, 63 So. 88; Ex parte Steverson, 177 Ala. 384, 58 So. 992. In the Kirkwood Case supra, it was said:

"This court has repeatedly laid down *** the rule that it will revise the rulings of the Court of Appeals upon certiorari only as to questions of law, and not upon a finding of facts, or in the application of the facts to the law."

"We have repeatedly held that this court will not review or revise the holding of the Court of Appeals, except for error as to a question of law, and not upon a finding or conclusion as to facts, or in the application of the facts to the law." Western Union Case, supra.

"But this court seems to have made up its mind not to review the rulings of the Court of Appeals on any point involving a construction of evidence, even though there is no conflict. Ex parte Steverson, 177 Ala. 384, 58 So. 992. And in its latest case it has said that it will not review the facts 'for the purpose of revising the application of same to the law by said Court of Appeals.' " Ex parte Savannah Williams Case, supra.

"We have previously held that this court had the authority to review and revise the decisions of the Court of Appeals upon questions of jurisdiction and law. Ex parte L. &amp N.R.R. Co., 176 Ala. 631, 58 So. 315. We held, however, in the case of Ex parte Steverson, 177 Ala. 384, 58 So. 992, that this court would not review or revise the finding or conclusion of the Court of Appeals upon the facts, or that we would review the facts for the purpose of revising the application of same to the law by said Court of Appeals." Ex parte State Case, supra.

"In the observance of the duty of supervision laid upon the Supreme Court by section 140 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court will not, under any circumstances, review or revise the findings or conclusions of the Court of Appeals

...