Case ID: ala-app_16/html/0662-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(81 South. 136)
    WASHBURN v. JOHNSON BROS. CO.
    (6 Div. 534.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    Jan. 14, 1919.)
    Exceptions, Bill op <&wkey;55(l) — Establishment in Appellate Court.
    Where bill was presented to trial judge, and then was delivered to counsel for appellee, who made material alterations, and it was returned to clerk of court, but not delivered to judge until after expiration of 90 days from rendition of judgment, no proper bill of exceptions was ever presented to trial judge, and bill as corrected cannot be established in appellate court.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; John C. Pugh, Judge.
    Action between S. A. Washburn and the Johnson Bros. Company. From a judgment in favor of the latter, the former appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    W. P. McCrossin and John C. Carmichael, both of Birmingham, for' appellant.
    William Spencer, Jr., and London, Yancey & Brower, all of Birmingham, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

The testimony submitted in support of the motion to establish the bill of exceptions shows that the proposed bill was presented to the trial judge on the 12th day of July, 1918, that it was thereupon delivered to counsel for appellee, who made several changes in the bill as presented, and it was then returned to the clerk of the court, and later delivered to the judge, who failed to sign it within the time required by, law. The evidence further shows that the'bill, after its alteration, truly presented “the points of decision and the facts.” The evi-, dence further shows that the bill as cor-: rected did not reach the hands of the pre-( siding judge until after the expiration of 90 days from the rendition of the judgment.-

The alteration relating to what the plain-i tiff proposed to show by the witness George, Johnson respecting the transaction between, Hildebrand, Tidwell, and Johnson Bros.,: through which the indebtedness of Tidwell, to Johnson Bros, was extinguished, was aj material alteration, and therefore the bill, as presented to the trial judge was not a; correct bill of exceptions, and the motion to establish the bill as corrected must be overruled. Bradberry v. State, 168 Ala. 141, 53 South. 266.

After consideration of the motion of the appellee to dismiss the appeal, the opinion prevails that this motion should be granted, and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.