Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Thomas J. Judge and Thomas J. Roe, both of Birmingham, for appellant. Counsel discuss the merits of the appeal and in support thereof cite 255 U.S. 313 and 316, 41 Sup. Ct. 266, 65 L.Ed. 654. W.J. Winn and G.L. Bailes, both of Birmingham, for appellee. Brief of counsel did not reach the Reporter.
Judges
  • SAMFORD, J.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Thomas J. Judge and Thomas J. Roe, both of Birmingham, for appellant. Counsel discuss the merits of the appeal and in support thereof cite 255 U.S. 313 and 316, 41 Sup. Ct. 266, 65 L.Ed. 654. W.J. Winn and G.L. Bailes, both of Birmingham, for appellee. Brief of counsel did not reach the Reporter.
Judges
  • SAMFORD, J.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

CARTWRIGHT v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM.

SAMFORD, J.

It was shown that the case of the prosecution rested upon evidence obtained by an illegal search of defendant's house and person — to which due exception was reserved. The judgment would be affirmed on authority of Banks v. State (Ala.App. 5 Div. 375) 93 So. 293; Shields Case, 104 Ala. 35, 16 So. 85, 53 Am. St. Rep. 17; Pope's Case, 168 Ala. 35, 53 So. 292; Robertson v. City of Montgomery, 201 Ala. 198 77 So. 724. But there being no assignment of errors in the record, the appeal is dismissed.

Ante, p. 376.

Appeal dismissed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

CARTWRIGHT v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM
(Feb 21, 1922)