Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

74 Ala. 315

Pruitt v. McWhorter

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1883

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1883-12-15

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed by McCormick Pruitt, against B. S. McWhorter, and sought a settlement of the accounts of á partnership in merchandizing, which had existed between the parties under the name of McWhorter & Pruitt. After answer filed, the chancellor ordered a statement of the accounts by the register; and several exceptions to his report, as to contested items in the account, were reserved by each of the parties.

Relies on Mooney v. Walter

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1883-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 1957

10 state decisions

3018831890190019101920193019401950decided

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 →

SOMERYILLE, J".

¶1— We have examined the testimony contained in this record with great care, and can discover no error prejudicial to the appellant The assignments of error are all based upon exceptions taken to the register’s report. The findings of the register, so far as approved by the chancellor, seem to be sustained, in most cases; by a preponderance of. the evidence. In no instance can we clearly see that any one of the exceptions is well taken. Many of these exceptions,moreover, are not taken in accordance with the requirements of the '93d Rule of Chancery Practice. — Code, 1876, p. 174; Mooney v. Walter, 69 Ala. 76; Crump v. Crump, Ib. 156; Vaughan v. Smith, Id. 92.

¶2We can not look to the original books of partnership accounts, which are omitted from the transcript, and are agreed to be sent up to this court as a part of the testimony in the cause. There is no rule of practice- which authorizes material evidence, relied ou as testimony, in support of exceptions taken or otherwise, to be omitted from the regular transcript, and substituted by the original papers, transmitted to this court as evidence by agreement of counsel.

¶3The 20th Rule of Practice authorizes the transmission of original papers to the appellate court, only when, in the opinion of the judge, or chancellor, it is deemed necessary, for some special reason, that they should be inspected by the judges of this court. It is only when the proper order is made that, such, papers can be considered by us, “ in connection with the transcript of the proceedings.” — Rule of Practice No. 20 ; Code, *3171876, p. 157. This rule, it is obvious, does not authorize the omission of such papers or documents from the transcript. They should be copied there, in all cases, where they constitute material testimony, whether the originals are transmitted to the appellate court or not.

¶4It is equally manifest that the Buie of Practice adopted by this court on April 25th, 1878, was not designed to cover a case of this kind. It was intended to authorize, by- agreement of counsel, the abbreviation of records, brought to this court on appeal, by the omission of all irrelevant or redundant matter,— evidence which might be deémed by counsel to be unnecessary to be considered by this court, in deciding the particular questions brought up for review. This can be done by written agreement of counsel, “ specifying what part of the proceedings shall be inserted in the transcript.”- — Buie of Pr. No. —; 71 Ala. p. iv.

¶5The decree is affirmed.

/74/ala/315 · .json · Public domain