Case ID: ala-app_21/html/0561-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SAMFORD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(110 So. 58)
    WATSON v. VEST.
    (8 Div. 492.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    Oct. 26, 1926.)
    Appeal and error <&wkey;766.
    Court of Appeals will not consider questions noted in appellant’s assignments of error where briefs failed to comply with Supreme Court rules 10 and 12.
    Appeal from Morgan County Court; W. T. Uowe, Judge.
    Action in assumpsit by Dick Vest against T. M. Watson. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. N. Powell, of Albany, for appellant.
    In view of the decision, it is not necessary that brief be here set out.
    Sample & Kilpatrick, of Hartsells, for appellee.
    Brief for appellant does not comply with Supreme Court rule 10, and the judgment should be affirmed.
   SAMFORD, J.

The appellant has failed to comply with Supreme Court rules 10 and 12 relating to the filing of briefs on appeal.

The rules applicable to the filing of briefs on appeal are simple and easy to understand and to comply with, and they were designed to aid the courts and to facilitate disposition of cases. Where the requirements of rules 10 and 12 are ignored by appellants, this court will not consider the questions noted in the assignments of error. This court is in entire accord with the opinion in Ogburn-Griffin Gro. Co. v. Orient Ins. Co., 188 Ala. 218-223, 66 So. 434. Upon- authority of that case and others of similar import, the judgment in this case is affirmed.

Affirmed. 
      <SmaFor othpr cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes