Case ID: ala-app_16/html/0271-02.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

(77 South. 421)
    GRAHAM v. WALL.
    (5 Div. 217.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    Dec. 18, 1917.)
    Appeal and Error &wkey;>637 — Bill of Exceptions — Necessity.
    Assignments of error in a bill of exceptions which was not presented and signed by the trial court within 90 days as required by Code 1907, § 3019, cannot be reviewed.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Coosa County; S. L. Brewer, Judge.
    Action by N. II. Graham against Alex: Wall. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Action of assumpsit by the appellant against the appellee. Prom a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
    
      John A. Darden, of Alexander City, for appellant. Riddle & Riddle, of Talladega, for appellee.
   SAMFORD, J.

Counsel for appellee call our attention to the fact that the record shows the bill of exceptions not to have been presented to the trial judge within 90 days from the date of judgment. It appears from the record that the judgment was rendered on December 2, 1915, and the bill of exceptions presented to the trial judge March 9, 1916. Under the decisions of both this and the Supreme Court, the presentation and indorsement in question is mandatory (Code 1907, § 3019), without which there is in fact no, bill of exceptions (Box et al. v. Southern Railway Co., 184 Ala. 599, 64 South. 69; Smith v. State, 166 Ala. 26, 52 South. 396). It was held in the Box Case, supra, that such facts are jurisdictional. Where, therefore, it appears that the bill of exceptions as set out in the record was not presented and signed within the time prescribed by the statute, this court' cannot consider the assignments of error presented by the pseudo bill. Authorities, supra.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.