Case ID: ala_129/html/0188-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      DOWDELL, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Western Union Telegraph Company, v. White & Co.
    
      Action against Telegraph Company to recover Damages for Delay in delivering Telegram.
    
    1. Trial of cause by court without jury; effect of judgment; not subject to review on appeal when no exception reserved thereto.- — When a cause is, by agreement of parties, submitted to the decision of the court without the intervention of a jury, and a special finding of the facts is not asked for or made as provided by statute, (Code, §'§ 3319-3321), the judgment of the court in such case is equivalent to a verdict of the jury; and where the bill of exceptions fails to show that an exception was taken and reserved to the judgment rendered, such judgment is not subject to review on appeal.
    iAppeal from the Circuit Court of Perry.
    Tried before the Hon. John Moore.
    This was an action brought 'by the. appellees, J. H. White & Co., against the Western Union Telegraph Company, to recover damages for delay in delivering a telegram.
    Under the decision on the present appeal it is unnecessary to set out the facts in detail.
    ■The cause was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendant appeals, and assigns as error the rendition of judgment, for the plaintiffs.
    J. M. Ealkner and Ray Rtsi-iton, for appellant.
    Tayloe & Taylor, contra.
    
   DOWDELL, J.

The cause was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, and a judgment was-entered in favor of the plaintiff. The bill of exceptions sets out the evidence introduced upon the trial, but fails to show that any exception was taken and reserved to the judgment rendered. There was no request for a special finding on the facts and no such finding was had. Code of 1896, §§ 3319-21. In such case the judgment of the court takes the place of the verdict of the jury, .and is not subject to review on appeal.—Chandler v. Crossland, 126 Ala. 176; Quillman v. Gurley, 85 Ala. 594; Betancourt v. Eberlin, 71 Ala. 466.

Affirmed.