Case ID: ala-app_3/html/0460-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WALKER, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carbon Hill & Lost Creek Coal Co. v. Cooper & Son.
    
      Assumpsit.
    
    (Decided Nov. 28, 1911.
    57 South. 81.)
    1. Trial; Evidence; Objection. — If no objection was made to the question, a responsive answer thereto will not be stricken on motion.
    2. Appeal and Error; Assignment; Insistence; Waiver. — Assignments of error are waived when they are presented in no other manner than by a mere mention of them in appellant’s brief, with a general statement that the rulings complained of were erroneous.
    Appeal from Walker Law and Equity Court.
    Heard before Hon. T. L. Sowell.
    
      Assumpsit by W. P. Cooper & Son against the Carbon Hill & Lost Creek Coal Company. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Zac P. Shepherd, and D. A. McGreg'or, for appellant.
    Counsel discuss assignments of error in a general way, but without citation of authority.
    Norman Gunn, for appellee.
    No such insistence is made in brief as to require this court to consider the errors assigned. — Harper v. Raisin F. Go., 148 Ala. 360; Fitts v. Phoenix A. Go., 153 Ala. 635; Hodges v. Ranibo, 155 Ala. 175.
   WALKER, P. J.

For anything that appears in the bill of exceptions, the statement of the witness A. B. Ray in reference to paying Jim Lee for checks issued by Mr. Bynon may haye been in response to a question or questions calling for a statement on that subject, to which no objection was interposed by the defendant. If so, the defendant was not entitled to have the responsive answer of the witness excluded on motion. It could not, by failing to object to the question, speculate on the answer the witness would make, and then be entitled to have the answer excluded.

The other assignments of error must be regarded as haying been waived, as the counsel for the appellant in his brief merely mentions them, and asserts in general terms that the rulings complained of were erroneous. An appellate court is not in this way to have the burden cast upon it of undertaking an unassisted search for errors in the record.—Fitts v. Phoenix Auction Co., 153 Ala. 635, 45 South. 150; Pearson v. Adams, 129 Ala. 157, 29 South. 977; Harper v. Raisin Fertilizer Co., 148 Ala. 360, 42 South. 550; Hodge et al v. Rambo, 155 Ala. 175, 45 South. 678.

Affirmed.