Case ID: ala-app_2/html/0469-01.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

Lasseter v. Deas.
    
      New Trial.
    
    (Decided Dec. 19, 1911.
    57 South. 49.)
    
      Appeal and Error; Judgment Appealable. — Where the judgment of the trial court on motion for new trial is not shown by the record proper, but the only indication of the court’s action that appears is a statement contained in the bill of exceptions that “the motion being understood and considered by the court, the court granted the same,” of a named date, such recital does not constitute a judgment, and there is nothing from which an appeal can be taken.
    Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court.
    Heard before Hon. W. W. Pearson.
    Trover by L. Lasseter against J. C. Deas. Judgment for plaintiff which was set aside, or was attempted to be set aside, and plaintiff appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    
      J. Lee Holloway, for appellant:
    Counsel discusses the issues involved in the original hearing of the case, 'but in view of the opinion it is not deemed necessary to set the same out. He insists, however, that the conrt erred in granting a new trial, and in support thereof, cites. — Chambers v., Morris, 144 Ala. 626.
    W. P. McG-augh, for appellee.
    After discussing the merits of the original trial, counsel insists that the court will not review the action of the trial court- on account of the insufficiency of the judgment from which the appeal was taken. He cites. — Randall v. Wellington, 141 Ala. 497.
   WALKER, P. J.

The action of the court on the motion for a new trial is not otherwise indicated in the record than by the statement, contained in the bill of exceptions, that, “the motion being understood and considered by the court, the court granted the same on the 13th day of July, 1910.” Following previous rulings on the subject, it must be held that such a recital does not constitute a judgment granting a new trial and vacating the judgment previously entered, and is insufficient to support an appeal.— Chambers v. Morris, 144 Ala. 626, 39 South, 375; Randall v. Worthington, 141 Ala. 497, 37 South. 594. This being true, the appeal must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.