Case ID: ala_165/html/0232-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": ". McCLELLAN, j.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cantrell v. Lindsey.
    
      Assumpsit.
    
    (Decided Jan. 20, 1910.
    51 South. 558.)
    
      Appeal and, Error; Review; Exception; Necessity. — Although objection was interposed to certain statements of counsel, no exceptions appears to have been reserved to the ruling of the court thereon, and hence, there is nothing to revise here.
    Appeal from Colbert Circuit Court.
    Heard before Hon. C. P. Almon,
    Action by R. H. Cantrell against J. A. Lindsey upon a promissory uote. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Jackson & Deloney, for appellant.
    — Counsel insist that the remarks of counsel on the trial were improper and highly prejudicial to the plaintiff and cite authorities in support of their contention, but do not discuss the questions decided.
    Kiric, Carmichael & Bather, for appellee.
    — Counsel insist that no objection was reserved to the action of the court, and hence, there is nothing to review. — Gross v-The State, 68 Ala. 476; King v. The State, 100 Ala. 85; Stone v. The' State, 105 Ala. 60; Knuohles v. The. State, 109 Ala. 2.
   . McCLELLAN, j.

— The only errors assigned and argued relate to remarks of counsel while presenting the defendant’s case to the jury. The course pursued-was to object and except to the remarks. Thereupon, in the two instances referred to in brief for appellant, the court said to counsel submitting the remarks that they were not proper and were not justified by the evidence. No exception was reserved for appellant to these statements of the court. The court’s action was not invoked to exclude the remarks from the jury’s consideration, or to instruct the jury in any manner in the premises. In short, there is no exception to the court’s action, and, in consequence, nothing to revise here. — Stone v. State, 105 Ala. 60, 17 South. 114; Nuckols v. State, 109 Ala. 2, 19 South. 504.

There is no merit in the assignments of error insisted on here. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Dowdell, C. J., and Simpson and Mayfield, J-L, concur.