Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

112 Ala. 532

Lillich v. Moore

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 15, 1895

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1895-11-15

Tried before .the Hon. James J. Banks. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The assignments of error being made by all the appellants, and there being no' error of which the appellant, D. McDonald, can complain, the assignments of error will be disregarded.— Beach,man v. Aurora, &c., Manfg. Co., 110 Ala. 555 ; Kimhrell v. Rogers, 90 Ala. 339 ; Rudulphv. Brewer, 96 Ala. 189.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“We know of no exception to the rule that, when errors injurious to some of the appellants only are assigned by them all jointly, they are not available to work a reversal, and will not be considered by the court.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 26 Ala. App. 565 - Elliott v. McCraney

Relies on Kimbrell v. Rogers · Rudulph v. Brewer · Beachman v. Aurora Silver Plate Manufacturing Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1895-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 1935

8 state decisions

4018951900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

McCLELLAN, J.

¶1Moore instituted a statutory contest of the election of Lillich, McDonald, Tipper and Townly to the Board of Aldermen of the town of Carbon Hill. At the hearing before the circuit judge there was judgment in favor of McDonald and against the other three contestees, Lillich, Tipper and Townly. That judgment has been brought here on appeal by all four of the contestees, Lillich, McDonald, Tipper and Townly; and they jointly, as appellants, assign the errors supposed to have been committed by the court below. It is clear that whatever errors may have been committed, they, in no sense or degree, w$re of injury to McDonald *533since no judgment went against him below, but, to tbe contrary, the judgment there was in his favor. We know of no exception to the rule that when errors injurious to some of the appellants only are assigned by them all jointly, they are not available to work a reversal, and will not be considered by the court. Kimbrell v. Rogers, 90 Ala. 339 ; Rudulph v. Brewer, 96 Ala. 189 ; Beachman v. Aurora Silver Plate Mfg. Co., 110 Ala. 555.

¶2The judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed.

¶3Affirmed.

/112/ala/532 · .json · Public domain