HARRIS v. CARTER

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

6 Div. 368.

Attorney(S)

Windham Countryman, of Birmingham, for appellants. As to the agreement between counsel as to the form of the bill of exceptions, see Supreme Court Rule 32, 4 Code 1923, p. 889. The bill of exceptions is not subject to be stricken. Arnold Co. v. Pinckard Lay, 16 Ala. App. 590, 80 So. 164. C. B. Gillmore, of Grove Hill, and Martin, Thompson, Turner McWhorter, of Birmingham, for appellees. A bill of exceptions which is nothing more than a stenographic report of the trial must be stricken on motion. Turner v. Thornton, 192 Ala. 98, 68 So. 813; Woodward Iron Co. v. Herndon, 130 Ala. 464, 30 So. 370; Gassenheimer Paper Co. v. Marietta Paper Co., 127 Ala. 183, 28 So. 564; Southern R. Co. v. Jackson, 133 Ala. 384, 31 So. 988. The agreement that it was a correct bill did not make it a legal bill. L N. v. Hall, 131 Ala. 161, 32 So. 603.

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

HARRIS et al. v. CARTER et al.

PER CURIAM.

The bill of exceptions in this case is practically a stenographic report of the trial in the lower court. It is in flagrant violation of the rule and must be stricken upon the authority of Turner v. Thornton, 192 Ala. 98, 68 So. 813, and cases there cited. The fact that counsel may have agreed upon the correctness of same, before presented to the trial judge for approval, was no agreement that it should be in improper form, though such an agreement would not be binding on this court. Louisville N. R. Co. v. Hall, 131 Ala. 161, 32 So. 603.

As the bill of exceptions is stricken, and there being no assignment of error involving the correctness of the record proper, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE, THOMAS, and BROWN, JJ., concur.

HARRIS et al. v. CARTER et al.

Comments