Case ID: ala-app_9/html/0432-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WALKEB, P. J. —", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gallahar v. Ingram & Co.
    • Detinue.
    
    (Decided June 16, 1913.
    62 South. 989.)
    
      Appeal and Error; Dismissal; Grounds. — Where the only organization of the. court for the trial shown is that for the November term, 1912, and the judgment sought to be reviewed was entered on May 6, 1912, the appeal will be dismissed because the record fails to disclose that the judgment was rendered by a court organized pursuant to law.
    Appeal from Calhoun Circuit Court.
    Heard before Hon. Hugh D. Merrill.
    Detinue by W. C. Gallaliar against Ingram & Company, for a mule. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Knox, Acker, Dixon & Sterne, for appellant.
    Counsel discuss the errors assigned, and cite authorities to sustain their contention that the court was in error in granting'defendant a new trial, but in view .of the opinion it is not deemed necessary to here set them out.
    
      Tate & Arnold; for appellee.
    No organization of the court is shown in the transcript and hence, this court is without jurisdiction to determine the appeal, and it must he dismissed. — Grcmtham v. State, 3 Ala. App. 168; Gomm. Gt. v. Ballard, 4 Ala. 310; P. A. & W. By. Co. v. Big Sandy, 147 Ala. 274.
   WALKEB, P. J. —

-The attention of the court has been called to the failure of the record in this case to show that at the time of the rendition of what purports to be the judgment appealed- from there was a properly organized trial court by which a lawful judgment could be rendered. What purports to be the judgment granting a new trial, which is sought to be reviewed, was entered on May 6, 1912. The only organization of the trial court which is shown by the record is that for the term commencing on November 11, 1912. The appeal must be dismissed, because of the failure of the record to show that Avhat purports tó be the judgment presented for review Avas rendered by a court organized pursuant to law. — Pensacola, A. & W. Ry. Co. v. Big Sandy Iron Co., 147 Ala. 274, 41 South. 418; Grantham v. State, 3 Ala. App. 168, 57 South. 1025; City of Demopolis v. Atkeison, 4 Ala. App. 278, 58 South. 684.

Appeal dismissed.