Williams v. Woodward Iron Co.

• Decision Date: 23 April 1895
• Citation: 106 Ala. 254,17 So. 517
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. WOODWARD IRON CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

17 So. 517

106 Ala. 254

WILLIAMS v. WOODWARD IRON CO.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 23, 1895

Appeal from circuit court, Jefferson county; James J. Banks, Judge.

Action by Elias Williams, administrator of the estate of James Williams, against the Woodward Iron Company, for damages for the negligence of defendant causing the death of plaintiff's intestate. From a judgment for defendant plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Brickell Semple & Gunter and Bowman & Harsh, for appellant.

Webb &amp Tillman, for appellee.

McCLELLAN J.

This action is prosecuted by Elias Williams, as administrator of James Williams, deceased, against the Woodward Iron Company and sounds in damages for the negligence of the defendant, whereby plaintiff's intestate came to his death. A jury was waived by the parties, and the trial was before the judge of the circuit court. A bill of exceptions was taken, and signed by the judge, in which are set forth all the evidence, and several rulings of the court on the admissibility of testimony, but it contains no statement of the finding and conclusion of the trial judge on the evidence, nor, of course, any reservation of an exception to such finding or conclusion and judgment. The only authority of law for a review by this court of the conclusion and judgment of the circuit court of Jefferson, in cases tried as this one was, is found in that provision of the act to regulate the practice and proceedings in that court and in this court on appeal, approved February 28, 1889, which is in these words: "That in the trial of any cause in said court without a jury, in addition to the questions which may be, under existing laws, presented to the supreme court of the state for review, either party may, by bill of exceptions, also present on appeal, for review, the conclusions and judgments of the court upon the evidence," etc. Acts 1888-89, pp. 797, 800, § 7. And, this being the only authority for the presentation of such conclusions and judgments, it follows, of course, that the mode of presentation prescribed by it is the only one by which we can acquire jurisdiction to consider and pass upon the correctness of such conclusions and judgments. They must be presented by a bill of exceptions,-i. e. the bill of exceptions must show what the finding or conclusion and judgment of the trial court were,-or else we are without jurisdiction to review the action of the circuit court in that behalf, though it may appear from the minutes of the court below, as certified to us, what conclusion was reached, and what judgment was rendered. These matters are not presented here by the bill of exceptions at all. The bill of exceptions in the transcript does not show that any conclusion was reached by the trial judge or judgment entered by the circuit court on the evidence. The case is not brought within the enabling statute, and we are powerless to review it. Moreover, had the bill of exceptions shown that a finding was made, and what it was, and what judgment was entered upon it, we would still be without jurisdiction, because it does not appear by the bill that any exception was reserved thereto, as was expressly ruled in Hood v. Manufacturing Co., 95 Ala. 461, 11 So. 10. But, if the conclusion and judgment of the trial court were before us for review, we could not justify a failure to concur therein on the evidence found in this record in respect of the want of causal connection between the negligence of the defendant, assuming there was negligence on its part, and the fatal injury to plaintiff's intestate. The facts are: The deceased was a brakeman and fireman on a train of cars belonging to the defendant, and at the time of receiving the injury from which he died he was on this train, in the preformance of his...