Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

16 Ala. App. 271

77 So 421

Graham v. Wall

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided December 18, 1917

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1917-12-18

L. Brewer, Judge. Action by N. II. Graham against Alex: Wall. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Action of assumpsit by the appellant against the appellee. Prom a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently October 1923

2 state decisions

Relies on Box v. Southern Railway Co. · Smith v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1917-12-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SAMFORD, J.

¶1 Counsel for appellee call our attention to the fact that the record shows the bill of exceptions not to have been presented to the trial judge within 90 days from the date of judgment. It appears from the record that the judgment was rendered on December 2, 1915, and the bill of exceptions presented to the trial judge March 9, 1916. Under the decisions of both this and the Supreme Court, the presentation and indorsement in question is mandatory (Code 1907, § 3019), without which there is in fact no, bill of exceptions (Box et al. v. Southern Railway Co., 184 Ala. 599, 64 South. 69; Smith v. State, 166 Ala. 26, 52 South. 396). It was held in the Box Case, supra, that such facts are jurisdictional. Where, therefore, it appears that the bill of exceptions as set out in the record was not presented and signed within the time prescribed by the statute, this court' cannot consider the assignments of error presented by the pseudo bill. Authorities, supra.

¶2 We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

¶3 Affirmed.

/16/alaapp/271 · .json · Public domain