Case ID: ala-app_9/html/0438-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PELHAM, J. —", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Moon v. Butler & Co.
    
      Detinue.
    
    (Decided. June 12, 1913.
    62 South. 1019.)
    
      Appeal and lilrror; Assignment; Form and Requisite. — A separate piece of letter paper containing the business card of an attorney attached to a page of the transcript by pasting the left hand margin thereon is not a part of the record, and is not a compliance with the requirements that the assignments of error shall be written on the record or transcript.
    Appeal from Madison Circuit Court.
    Heard before Hon. A. H. Alston.
    Detinue by J. E. Butler & Co., against G. P. Moon. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals.
    Affirmed for want of assignment of error on tbe record.
    Turner Petty, for appellant.
    Counsel discusses tbe errors attempted to be assigned with citation of authority in support of bis contentions, but in view of tbe opinion, it is not deemed necessary to here set them out.
    Spragins & Speaks, for appellee.
    After discussing tbe merits of tbe appeal, with citation of authority, counsel insist that there is not such an assignment of error on tbe record as will authorize this court to review tbe cause. — Pugh v. Hardeman, 151 Ala. 248.
   PELHAM, J. —

Tbe appellee in brief filed cites tbe ruling of tbe Supreme Court as to wliat constitutes an assignment of errors on tbe record, and invokes tbe ruling of this court on this point, insisting that tbe assignment in this case is not sufficient to authorize a review of tbe errors assigned. Tbe transcript shows that the only assignment of errors attempted is set out on a separate piece of letter paper, containing the business card of appellant’s counsel printed or embossed upon it. This separate sheet of paper is attached to a page of the transcript by pasting the left-hand edge thereof to such page. Under the holdings of the Supreme Court this is not an assignment of errors on the record, and there must be an affirmance for failure to assign errors. — Pugh v. Hardman, 151 Ala. 248, 44 South. 389; Hunter v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 150 Ala. 594, 43 South. 802, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 848.

We may state, however, that an examination of the record shows that the assignments undertaken to be made are without merit.

Affirmed.