Case ID: ala-app_15/html/0234-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BROWN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pate v. Baker.
    Assumpsit.
    (Decided November 28, 1916.
    73 South. 125.)
    1. Bill of Exceptions; Presentation; Time. — A bill of exceptions not presented to the trial judge within 90 days from the date of the judgment cannot be looked to as a part of the record for the purpose of review.
    2. Appeal and Error; Review; Bill of Exceptions. — Where the affirmative charge is given or refused, the action of the trial court cannot be reviewed in the absence of a bill of exceptions.
    Appeal from Coosa Circuit Court.
    Heard before Hon. S. L. Brewer.
    Assumpsit by D. W. Baker against J. C. Pate. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    John A. Darden, for appellant.
    Riddle, Burt & Riddle, for appellee.
   BROWN, J.

The judgment in this case was rendered on the 6th day of December, 1915, and the indorsement of the trial judge on the bill of exceptions shows that it was not presented until the 7th day of March, 1916, more than 90 days from the day on which the judgment was rendered, and cannot be looked to as a part of the record for the purpose of reviewing the trial court. — Box, et al. v. Southern Ry. Co., 184 Ala. 598, 64 South. 69; Harper v. State, 13 Ala. App. 47, 69 South. 302.

The only matter assigned as error is the giving of the affirmative charge for appellee and the refusal of a like charge to appellant; and, as those are matters that cannot be reviewed in the absence of a bill of exceptions, the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.