Reynolds v. Burkhalter
Decision Date | 19 October 1972 |
Parties | Edna Earl REYNOLDS et al., v. Charles BURKHALTER, Jr., et al. S.C. 71. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Roy D. McCord, and J. A. Hornsby, Gadsden, for appellants.
Irby A. Keener, Jr., Centre, for appellees.
Complainants appeal from an adverse decree in a suit to quiet title to land.
On Motion by complainants, the trial court heard testimony ore tenus on two occasions; to wit, January 12, 1971, and February 9, 1971.
Ten witnesses testified on the hearings. The transcript of their testimony is set out on forty-five transcript pages. Approximately thirty exhibits were received in evidence.
Appellants' Statement of the Facts is set out on two and one-half pages of their brief. Appellants' Statement of the Facts does not contain a condensed recital of the evidence given by each witness in narrative form as required by Supreme Court Rule 9 when the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict or finding in fact or law is assigned as error.
Appellants set out three Propositions of Law in their brief and cite one case to support each proposition of law, as follows:
'I.
'A deed will be reformed only if there has been a meeting of the minds of the parties and as a result of a mutual mistake the deed did not express their common intent, and the evidence must be clear and convincing.
'Grove v. Robertson, 255 Ala. 346, 51 So.2d 528.
'II.
'Where reformation is sought solely on ground of mistake, no fraud intervening, mutuality of mistake is essential.
'Darden v. Meadows, 259 Ala. 676, 68 So.2d 709.
'III.
'In absence of fraud or inequitable conduct, unilateral mistake will not furnish ground for reformation.
'Webb v. Sprott, 225 Ala. 600, 144 So. 569.'
The entire argument section of appellants' brief is as follows:
'ARGUMENT
lands by virtue of adverse possession. Indeed, Complainants strongly resisted encroachment of Respondent Burkhalter from the moment it was discovered. (See Transcript Pages 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37).
Assignment 2 recites:
The appellees, in their brief and motion, have challenged the sufficiency of the assignments of error and also the sufficiency of the Statement of the Facts in appellants' brief to comply with Supreme Court Rule 9. In pertinent part, Rule 9 recites:
'Appellant's brief under separate headings shall contain: . . . (b) under the heading 'Statement of the Facts,' a condensed recital of the evidence in narrative form so as to present the substance clearly and concisely, referring to the pages of the transcript, and If the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict or finding, in fact or law, is assigned, then the statement shall contain a condensed recital of the evidence given by each witness in narrative form bearing on the points in issue so as to fully present the substance of the testimony of the witness clearly and concisely; . . .' (Emphasis supplied.)
In their brief, appellants expressly argue that 'The great preponderance of the evidence will fail to bear out . . . the decision of the lower Court that Respondent Burkhalter had acquired possession of any part of Complainants' lands by virtue of adverse possession.' This is clearly an assertion that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding of the trial court. In this circumstance, the appellants' brief is required to contain a condensed recital of the evidence given by each witness as provided by Rule 9.
This court has said:
Mothershed v. Mothershed, 274 Ala. 528, 530, 150 So.2d 372, 373.
This court has held in numerous cases that a failure to comply with Rule 9, when insufficiency of the evidence to support the finding is relied on by appellant, requires affirmance. See: Case v. Ward, 276 Ala. 242, 160 So.2d 859; Burch v. Southeastern Sand & Gravel Company, 278 Ala. 504, 179 So.2d 83; Zanaty v. Hagerty, 280 Ala. 232, 191 So.2d 516; Beck v. Beck, 286 Ala. 692, 246 So.2d 420. The reason for the rule has been stated as follows:
". . .. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Nunn v. Keith
-
Campbell v. Water Works and Gas Bd. of Town of Red Bay
...Colonial Refrigerated Transp., Inc., 288 Ala. 434, 261 So.2d 779; Brooks v. Brooks, 289 Ala. 186, 266 So.2d 746; and Reynolds v. Burkhalter, 289 Ala. 528, 268 So.2d 802. Consistency demands that I continue to follow this same approach and concur in the majority opinion in this The new Alaba......
-
Aday v. Aday
...a condensed recital of the evidence given by each witness as provided by Rule 9. The Supreme Court, in October 1972, in Reynolds v. Burkhalter, Ala., 268 So.2d 802, said: "We have held that if there is a failure to comply with Rule 9 (old Rule 10), there is, as a consequence, a failure to i......
-
East v. Citrano
...he insists upon, due to his failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 9. The Alabama Supreme Court, in October 1972, in Reynolds v. Burkhalter, Ala., 268 So.2d 802, 804, said: "We have held that if there is a failure to comply with Rule 9 (old Rule 10), there is, as a consequence, a failure......