Case ID: ala_152/html/0535-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ANDERSON, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

McCormack Harvesting Machinery Co. v. Clayton, et al.
    
    
      Assumpsit.
    
    (Decided July 2, 1907.
    44 South. 552.)
    
      Appeal and, Error; Bill of Exceptions; Record. — Although there are several orders oí extension in the record allowing additional time for signing the bill of exceptions, the original order extending tne time is not shown otherwise than by the bill of exceptions, and it failing to appear that the bill was signed in term time, it cannot •be considered.
    Appeal from Crenshaw Circuit Court.
    Heard before Hon. J. C. Richardson.
    Action by the McCormack Harvesting Machinery Company in assumpsit against J. A. Clayton and others. From a judgment for defendants plaintiffs appeal.
    Affirmed.
    M. W. Rushtoon, and F. B. Bricken, for appellant.
    Counsel discuss the assignments of error but do not touch on the matter discussed in the opinion.
    J. O. Sentell, and Powell & Hamilton, for appel-lee.
    The original order granting the extension of time does not appear of record and it does not appear that the bill was signed in accordance with tbe provisions of tbe statute. — Central of Ca. By. Co. v. Carroll, 41 South. 579; Dantzler v.- Swift Creek Mill Co., 128 Ala. 410; Brown v. The State, 138 Ala. 152; Peterman v. The State, 139 Ala. 131.
   ANDERSON, J.

This case was tried at the regular term of court wbicb convened under operation of law on the second Monday in September, 1905, and wbicb could continue two weeks. the bill of exceptions was signed the 27tb day of February, 1906. There is nothing in the. record proper, showing that any time was. given for the signing of the bill of exceptions after the adjournment of court. the bill of exceptions shows that sixty clays was given and the record shows several orders of extension, but the first extension is not disclosed by the record and is merely shown in the bill of exceptions wbicb is insufficient according to previous decisions of this court. — Central of Ca. Ry. Co. v. Carroll, 41 South. 579; Peterman v. State, 139 Ala. 131;. 36 South. 767; Dantzler v. Swift Creek Co., 128 Ala. 410, 30 South. 674.

As tbe bill of exceptions cannot be considered by this court, and there being no assignment of error relating' to rulings presented by tbe record proper, tbe judgment of tbe circuit court must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Haralson, Dowdell, Simpson, Denson and McClellan, JJ., concurring. Tyson, C. J., dissents.