Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

151 Ala. 316

Jones v. Adkins

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided May 19, 1907

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1907-05-19

Heard before Hon. A. H. Alston. Assumsit by Jones as administrator, etc., against C. It. Adkins and others. From a judgment for plaintiff defendants appeal. The introduction of plaintiff’s letters of administration without objection ivas conclusive of his right to maintain this suit. — Section 77, Code 1896 ¡Sands v. Hickey, 135 Ala. 322; Johnson v. Kcyscr, 127 Ala. 309; Morgan v. Casey, 73 Ala. 222; Tarver v. Boykin, 6 Ala. 358; 91 U. S. 238.

Relies on Kansas City, Memphis & Birmingham Railway Co. v. Matthews · Dannelley v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1907-05-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently July 1958

7 state decisions

30190719101920193019401950decided

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 →

DOWDELL, J.

¶1There are four assignments of error on the record. The first assignment is as follows: “The court erred in its rulings on the evidence.” This assignment is genera], and will not, therefore, be considered. The office of an assignment of error is to specifically point out the error complained of. The second assignment of eiTor is likewise general, and subject to the same condemnation as the first.

¶2The cause was tried on issue joined on the defendant's second plea, and on this single issue was without objection submitted to the jury. The sec'ond plea was as follows: “For further answer the defendants say that plaintiff has not been duly appointed as administrator of the estate of Ben Jones, deceased.” The plaintiff took issue on this plea, and, this being the only issue, the court did not err in “restricting the evidence to this issue.” This disposes of the third assignment of error.

¶3The action of the trial court in the giving and refusal of charges requested in writing will not be reviewed on appeal, unless such charge or charges are set out in the bill of exceptions, and consequently the fourth and last assignment of error is not well founded. — Dannelley v. State, 130 Ala. 134, 30 South. 452; Lunsford v. Bailey, 142 Ala. 310, 38 South. 362.

¶4We find no reversible arror in the record, and the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.

¶5Affirmed.

Tyson, C. J., and Anderson and McOlelean, JJ., concur.
/151/ala/316 · .json · Public domain