Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Ala. App. 591

O'Brien v. Brewer

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided May 16, 1911

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1911-05-16

Heard before Hon. E. C. Cr'owe. Assumpsit by Br,ewer & Jones against P. H. O’Brien. Judgment for plaintiff and from an order overruling motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. The court should have permitted the motion to be amended. — Ex parte E. A. & B. B. R. Co., 17 So. 182; Secs. 5366-7, Code 1907. The. court erred in overruling appellant’s motion to set aside the judgment nil dicit. — Ex parte E. A. & B. R. R. Go., supra; Sec. 5372, Code 1907.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1915

1 state decisions

Relies on Ewing v. Wofford · Barton v. Charter Gas Engine Co. · Wiggins v. Witherington & Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1911-05-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PELHAM, J.

¶1This is an appeal by the defendant in the court below from an order of the circuit court of Jefferson county, overruling a motion to set aside a judgment nil (licit rendered against defendant (appellant) in favor of the plaintiffs (appellees) and grant appellant a new trjal.

¶2The motion of appellant (the defendant in the circuit court. )to .set aside the judgment theretofore rendered is not set out in the bill of exceptions, in accordance with section 2846 of the Code of 1907, nor is the motion shown to have been enrolled upon the court’s records by an order of the circuit court. Unless the motion is enrolled by 6i;der of the trial court, or set out in the bill of exceptions, this court is precluded from reviewing the ruling of the circuit court in overruling the motion. The Supreme Court has uniformly and unequivocally declared this rule, in many cases.—Wiggins v. Witberington & Co., 96 Ala. 535, 11 South. 539; Lienkauff v. Tuskaloosa Co., 99 Ala. 619, 12 South. *593918; Ewing v. Wofford, 122 Ala. 439, 25 South. 251; Craig v. Etheredge, 133 Ala. 284, 32 South. 65; Randall v. Worthington, 141 Ala. 497, 37 South. 594; Barton v. Charter Gas Engine Co., 154 Ala. 275, 45 South. 213; and authorities cited in these cases.

¶3Under the authorities above cited, we are precluded from considering the question, and the judgment denying the motion is accordingly affirmed.

¶4Affirmed.

/1/alaapp/591 · .json · Public domain