Thornton v. Tutt
| Decision Date | 06 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | 2 Div. 476 |
| Citation | 283 Ala. 72,214 So.2d 425 |
| Parties | R. L. THORNTON, Sr., et al. v. Lennie E. TUTT et al. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
J. Mason Davis, Birmingham, for appellants.
Lindsey & Lindsey, Butler, for appellees.
This is an appeal by respondents from a final decree for complainants rendered by the Circuit Court of Choctaw County, Alabama, in Equity.
Assignment of error No. 1 was not mentioned or argued by appellant and is therefore waived. Rule 9, Revised Rules of the Supreme Court, 279 Ala. XXIII.
Assignments of error numbered 2 through 6 relate only to errors alleged to have been made by the court reporter in taking down the testimony or in transcribing it, and not to an error by the court.
Only adverse rulings of the trial court are subject to assignments of error and reviewable on appeal. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. State, 274 Ala. 544, 150 So.2d 677. In these assignments of error, no error is alleged to have been committed by the trial court and there is nothing for this Court to review.
Assignments of error numbered 7 through 10 are as follows:
These assignments of error, 7, 8, 9 and 10, are argued in bulk; 8, 9 and 10 are faulty in that they are too general. Andrews v. May, 277 Ala. 248, 168 So.2d 619; Smith v. Jackson, 277 Ala. 257, 169 So.2d 21; Carlton v. Musicians Protective Association, Local No. 479, 276 Ala. 128, 159 So.2d 831; Thomas v. Brook, 274 Ala. 462, 149 So.2d 809; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. State, supra; Roan v. Smith, 272 Ala. 538, 133 So.2d 224; Morris v. Yancey, 272 Ala. 549, 132 So.2d 754; Bertolla & Sons v. Kaiser, 267 Ala. 435, 103 So.2d 736; Rule 1, Revised Rules of the Supreme Court, 279 Ala. XXIII.
The 7th assignment of error is argued in bulk with assignments of error 8, 9 and 10 and as 8, 9 and 10 are faulty because too general, assignment of error 7 must also fail. When unrelated assignments of error are argued in bulk, and one is faulty, all must...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Nat. Bank of Birmingham v. Brown
...and Security v. Simms, 275 Ala. 61, 152 So.2d 126; Coastal States Life Ins. Co. v. Gass, 278 Ala. 656, 180 So.2d 255; Thornton v. Tutt, 283 Ala. 72, 214 So.2d 425. Assignments of Error No. 26 and No. 33 are not argued and are therefore waived, Supreme Court Rule 9. Valley Heating, Cooling &......
-
Johnston v. Bridges
...court will consider only rulings of the trial court, adverse to the appellants, which have been duly assigned as error. Thornton v. Tutt, 283 Ala. 72, 214 So.2d 425; N.A.A.C.P. v. State, 274 Ala. 544, 150 So.2d 677; Mulkin v. McDonough Construction Co. of Ga., 266 Ala. 281, 95 So.2d 921. Th......
-
Astronautical Development Co. v. University of Ala., Huntsville Foundation Inc.
...considered on this appeal. Neumiller v. Jenkins, 270 Ala. 231, 117 So.2d 402; Smith v. Smith, 279 Ala. 570, 188 So.2d 530; Thornton v. Tutt, 283 Ala. 72, 214 So.2d 425; Rule 9, Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of Alabama, 279 Ala. We will consider first appellant's Assignments of Error 27......
-
Carey v. Burrell
...joinder of these faulty assignments with good assignment 4, will cause us not to consider that assignment. Our case of Thornton v. Tutt, 283 Ala. 72, 214 So.2d 425 (1968), has indicated that result. There, assignments 7, 8, 9, and 10 were argued jointly. After pointing out that 8, 9, and 10......