Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

23 Ala. App. 548

129 So 295

Browning v. Lockett

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided June 17, 1930

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1930-06-17

Relies on Gray v. State · 18 Ala. App. 80 - Fries v. Acme White Lead & Color Works · 22 Ala. App. 424 - Eason v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1930-06-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 1954

5 state decisions

30193019401950decided

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 →

PER CURIAM.

¶1 To entitle appellant to the relief he seeks by this motion it must be made to appear that within the time allowed by law he presented to the judge presiding at the trifii a bill of exceptions stating the points of decision and the facts which must be truly stated. That means, of course, that the points and facts must be stated as they occurred on the trial in every substantial particular. In this case we find that this has not been done, and section 6435 of the Code of 1923, under which this motion is filed, being highly penal, we must hold the appellant to the letter of the statute. Particular attention is directed to the following authorities; Eason v. State, 22 Ala. App. 424, 116 So. 409: Finney v. Sullivan, 22 Ala. App. 130, 113 So. 472; Sovereign Camp W. O. W. v. Ward, 200 Ala. 19, 75 So. 331; Fries v. Acme W. L. & C. Works, 18 Ala. App. 80, 89 So. 842.

¶2 The motion is overruled.

/23/alaapp/548 · .json · Public domain