Raphael Per L'Arte, Inc. v. Lee
Decision Date | 30 May 1963 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 856 |
Citation | 275 Ala. 307,154 So.2d 663 |
Parties | RAPHAEL PER L'ARTE, INC. et al. v. Ethel W. LEE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Gordon & Cleveland, Birmingham, and E. Ray Acton, Homewood, for appellants.
Barber & Johnston, Birmingham, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, in Equity, denying motions of the respondents below to discharge and dissolve a temporary injunction. The injunction arose out of the following facts:
Complainant, Ethel W. Lee, appellee here, filed a verified bill of complaint in equity alleging that she owned 38 of the 100 shares of the corporate respondent, Raphael Per L'Arte, Inc.; that respondent, Raphael Coppola, owned 60 shares, and that Ray Acton and Don Bailey (respondents below but not parties to this appeal) owned one share each. The bill alleged fraud on the part of respondent Coppola, arising out of misrepresentations that induced complainant to purchase her stock. Complainant, by her bill, sought an accounting by respondent Coppola to the corporation, the dissolution of the corporation, appointment of a receiver to take over its business, a temporary injunction limiting the scope and activities of the corporation pendente lite, and an impounding of the corporate books and records. On February 22, 1962, the temporary injunction prayed for was issued. Respondents filed a motion to discharge the injunction and a motion to dissolve it, both of which were denied. From the decree of the court denying these motions, this appeal was perfacted.
In the brief filed by appellant, no attempt has been made to relate the argument contained in the brief to any of the assignments of error. As we understand it, the errors assigned are argued in bulk. No assignment of error is ever mentioned or referred to in brief. We have examined and compared at great length the errors assigned by appellant and the propositions of law and argument set forth in appellant's brief, and the lack of continuity between them. We have, in an effort to be as fair as possible to appellant, undertaken to correlate his assignments of error and his argument. However, we have been unable to do so with any degree of certainty.
Supreme Court Rule 9, Code of Alabama 1940, Title 7, Appendix, which is entitled 'Appellant's Brief; How Prepared,' requires, among other things:
'* * * (c) under the heading 'Propositions of Law,' a concise statement, without argument, of each rule or proposition of law relied upon to sustain the errors assigned, together with the authorities relied upon in support of each, and in citing cases, the names of parties must be given, with the book and page where reported; (d) argument with respect to the errors assigned which counsel desire to insist upon. * * *' (Emphasis supplied.)
In the case of Dudley Brothers Lumber Co. v. Long, 268 Ala. 565, 109 So.2d 684, this court considered a case in which the appellants had, in brief, referred to the assignments of error by page numbers only. In that case, the court stated:
See also Suits v. Glover, 260 Ala. 449, 71 So.2d 49, 43 A.L.R.2d 465; Schneider v. Southern Cotton Oil Co., 204 Ala. 614, 87 So. 97; and Christ v. Spizman, 33 Ala.App. 586. 35 So.2d 568.
In the case of Bolton v. Barnett Lumber & Supply Co., 267 Ala. 74, 100 So.2d 9, this court was confronted with a case quite similar to the instant one. The only substantial difference was that in that case the assignments of error were set out in the forepart of the brief, but were not mentioned in the argument. In the instant case, they were neither set out nor mentioned. In that case, the court stated that an order of affirmance might, with justification, be entered for insufficient compliance with Supreme Court Rule 9, supra. There, however, the court saw fit to go further and consider the argument. In so doing, the court said:
* * *'
The foregoing rule has application here.
Appellant's assignment of error No. 4 reads...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Devos v. Cunningham Grp., LLC
...of’ the bond. Willowbrook Country Club, Inc. v. Ferrell, 286 Ala. 281, 239 So. 2d 298 (1970)."). See also Raphael Per L'Arte, Inc. v. Lee, 275 Ala. 307, 310, 154 So. 2d 663, 666 (1963). Rule 65(c), Ala. R. Civ. P., provides:"No restraining order or preliminary injunction shall issue except ......
-
Zanaty v. Hagerty
...considered to be argued in bulk. Associates Discount Corp. v. Big Three Dodge, Inc., 277 Ala. 406, 171 So.2d 114; Raphael Per L'Arte, Inc., v. Lee, 275 Ala. 307, 154 So.2d 663; Bolton v. Barnett Lumber & Supply Co., 267 Ala. 74, 100 So.2d 9; Dudley Bros. Lumber Co. v. Long, 268 Ala. 565, 10......
-
Ex parte Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO
...time should be allowed for filing a new bond, the injunction meanwhile continuing in force. . . ..' Raphael Per L'Arte, Inc. v. Lee, 275 Ala. 307, 310, 154 So.2d 663, 666. It is clear that the injunction was not void in the instant case; that, even if the alleged defects in the bond had bee......
-
Sides v. Sides
...one is found to be without merit, the court will not consider the others. Thornton v. Tutt, Ala., 214 So.2d 425; Raphael Per L'Arte, Inc. v. Lee, 275 Ala. 307, 154 So.2d 663; Barrett v. Hanks, 275 Ala. 383, 155 So.2d 339. Therefore, we find no error herein. We might add that no cases were c......