Thomas v. Brook
| Decision Date | 07 February 1963 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 894 |
| Citation | 274 Ala. 462,149 So.2d 809 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Parties | Lillian W. THOMAS v. Max BROOK. |
Holberg, Tully, Hodnette & Mobley, Mobile, for appellant.
Willis C. Darby, Jr., and Vincent F. Kilborn, Mobile, for appellee.
This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment for defendant rendered by the court without a jury in an action at law.
The first assignment of error recites:
When the record does not disclose the fact assumed as a ground of an assignment of error, such ground for error cannot be considered on appeal. Davis & Company v. Thomas, 154 Ala. 279, 45 So. 897; White v. State, 262 Ala. 694, 81 So.2d 267.
The record does not disclose a motion for new trial or judgment overruling such motion. Consequently, Assignment 1 is without foundation and presents nothing for review.
Assignment 2 recites:
Appellate courts review only questions reserved on the trial and reverse the trial court only for errors of the court to the prejudice of appellant. Life & Casualty Ins. Co. of Tennessee v. Womack, 228 Ala. 70, 151 So. 880.
In assigning errors, the appellant must specify the action of the trial court of which he would have review and revision. Kinnon v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 187 Ala. 480, 482, 65 So. 397; Wetzel v. Hobbs, 249 Ala. 434, 31 So.2d 639.
This court has held insufficient to present anything for review an assignment that King v. Jackson, 264 Ala. 339, 341, 87 So.2d 623.
This court has also held that an assignment that, "There is no evidence to support the verdict and judgment of the Lower Court," alleged no error in the trial court. Life & Casualty Ins. Co. of Tennessee v. Womack, supra, 228 Ala. at page 71, 151 So. 880.
Assignment 2 in the instant case alleges no error in the trial court and is insufficient to present any question for review.
Assignment 3 recites:
Such an assignment of error raises nothing for review. Baldwin, Alabama Truck Farms Co. v. Strode, 184 Ala. 213, 60 So. 521; Thompson v. State, 267 Ala. 22, 99 So.2d 198; Bertolla v. Kaiser, 267 Ala. 435, 103 So.2d 736; McLaney v. Turner, 267 Ala. 588, 104 So.2d 315.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Ass'n for Advancement of Colored People v. State
...considers the decree to be erroneous. No. 14 deals with the preponderance of the evidence and presents nothing for review. Thomas v. Brook, Ala., 149 So.2d 809; King v. Jackson, 264 Ala. 339, 87 So.2d 623. No. 19 contends that the judgment is without foundation in law or fact. Such an assig......
-
Morgan County Commission v. Powell
...cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., Cox v. Howard Hall Co., 289 Ala. 35, 265 So.2d 580 (1972); Thomas v. Brook, 274 Ala. 462, 149 So.2d 809 (1963). Furthermore, the record does not indicate that the judges, or anyone else for that matter, were ever called as witnesses.......
-
Johnston v. Bridges
...Ala. 63, 237 So.2d 456; Kinnon v. L. & N.R.R. Co., 187 Ala. 480, 65 So. 397; Wetzel v. Hobbs, 249 Ala. 434, 31 So.2d 639; Thomas v. Brook,274 Ala. 462, 149 So.2d 809. And, adverse rulings not specifically assigned, will not be considered on appeal. State v. Boone, 276 Ala. 16, 158 So.2d 658......
-
General Finance Corp. v. Bradwell
...trial is, of course, unavailing when the record does not show a motion for new trial or a judgment overruling such motion. Thomas v. Brook, 274 Ala. 462, 149 So.2d 809. Appellant treats the judgment of August 7, 1964, as denying the original motion for a new trial, as well as the additional......