Case ID: ala_169/html/0490-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "McCLELLAN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hester, et al. v. Cantrell.
    
      Breach of Contract.
    
    (Decided Dec. 1, 1910.
    53 South. 1009.)
    
      Bill of Exceptions; Incorporating Evidence; Record; Violation of Rule. — Where a bill of exceptions purports to be and. is nothing more than a stenographic report of the case, it is in patent violation of rule 32, circuit court practice, and will be stricken.
    Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court.
    Heard before Hon. S. L. Brewer.
    Action by J. P. Cantrell against Mrs. I. M. Hester and others, for breach of contract. Judgment for plaintiff and defendants appeal.
    Bill of exceptions stricken and the cause affirmed.
    R. J. ITooton, for appellant.
    Counsel discuss the assignments of error raised upon the record as shown by the bill of exceptions, but in view of the decision it is not deemed necessary to set them out.
    E. M. Oliver, for appellee.
    The bill of exceptions in this case is constructed in violation of rule 32, circuit court practice, and should be stricken. There is no assignment of error on the record proper, and hence, the cause should he affirmed.
   McCLELLAN, J.

The bill of exceptions expressly purports to he, as it is, nothing other than the stenographic report of the trial below. It is, hence, constructed. in patent violation of rule 32 of circuit court practice (Civ. Code 1907, p. 1526). It will be stricken. —Gassenheimer & Co. v. Marietta Co., 127 Ala. 183, 28 South. 564; Sou. Ry. Co. v. Jackson, 133 Ala. 384, 31 South. 988; Woodward Iron Co. v. Herndon, 130 Ala. 364, 375, 376, 30 South. 370.

There is no error assigned as upon the record proper, so the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Dowdell, C. J., and Simpson and Mayfield, JJ., concur.