White v. Roe
| Decision Date | 06 June 1907 |
| Citation | 44 So. 211,151 Ala. 287 |
| Parties | WHITE v. ROE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Autauga County; S. L. Brewer, Judge.
Action between W. N. White and Dock Roe. White appeals from the judgment. Affirmed.
Rushton & Coleman, for appellant.
Mac A. Smith, for appellee.
What purports to be a bill of exceptions in this case was signed by the judge after the adjournment of the court, and the record does not show that any time was given for the signing of same in vacation in such a manner as is authorized by law. Gen. Acts 1903, p. 74, giving 20 days after the rendition of decrees, decisions, etc., for signing bills of exceptions, and authorizing an extension, is an amendment of section 465 of the Code of 1896, and which applies to appeals from the probate court alone. The motion to strike the bill of exceptions is sustained, and, as no error is assigned to any rulings disclosed by the record proper, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
Counsel for appellant contends that, as the case was tried by the court upon an agreed statement of facts, a bill of exceptions is unnecessary to enable us to review the conclusions of the trial court upon the facts, and relies on the case of Le Bron v. Morris, 110 Ala. 115, 20 So. 57. This case does not support the contention, and an examination of the original record discloses the fact that the agreed statement of facts was presented by a bill of exceptions. The only way in which this court can receive information of the evidence offered on a trial below is by bill of exceptions, with perhaps the possible exception in case of a demurrer to the evidence, but with which said exception we are not now dealing. Maddox v. Brown, 9 Port. 118. The agreed statement of facts is no part of the record proper. An agreed statement of facts is but one way of introducing evidence in the lower court, and must be presented to this court by a bill of exceptions.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chapman v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
... ... proper the agreed statement of facts. The ruling of the trial ... court and the rendition of judgment in favor of defendant can ... only be presented under the facts to this court by bill of ... exceptions. Code 1923, §§ 9498, 9502; White v. Roe, ... 151 Ala. 287, 44 So. 211; Western U.T. Co. v ... Garthright, 151 Ala. 413, 44 So. 212; Williams v ... Woodward Iron Co., 106 Ala. 254, 17 So. 517; ... Stephenson v. Allison, 165 Ala. 238, 51 So. 622, 138 ... Am.St.Rep. 26; Clark v. McCrary, 80 Ala. 110; ... Southern Express Co ... ...
-
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Garthright
... ... A. U. T. Co., 75 Ala. 168, ... 51 Am. Rep. 435; W. U. T. Co. v. Milton (Fla.) 43 ... The ... paper purporting to be a bill of exceptions ... [44 So. 213.] ... cannot be considered, as it was not properly signed, and is ... controlled both in law and fact by the case of White v ... Roe (Ala.) 44 So. 211 ... The ... judgment of the circuit court is affirmed ... TYSON, ... C.J., and DOWDELL and McCLELLAN, JJ., ... ...
-
Jerrell v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 5 Div. 86.
...255, 104 So. 517; Morris v. Birmingham Pub. Co., 217 Ala. 295, 116 So. 144; Williams v. State, 215 Ala. 586, 112 So. 193; White v. Roe, 151 Ala. 287, 44 So. 211. provisions of section 6095, Code 1923, for an "agreed case" were intended to correspond with the old practice where such agreemen......
-
Williams v. State
...to disturb the judgment from which the appeal is prosecuted. Chapman v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 213 Ala. 255, 104 So. 517; White v. Roe, 151 Ala. 287, 44 So. 211. ANDERSON, C.J., and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur. ...