Case ID: ala_135/html/0475-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "TYSON, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Logan v. Adams Machine Co.
    
      Statutory Action of Detinue.
    
    1. Pleading and practice; rulings upon motion to strike pleas; not reviewed unless shown By lili of exceptions, — The rulings of the trial court upon motions to strike from the file certain pleas, can not he. reviewed on appeal unless such motions and the rulings thereon are presented by a bill of exceptions.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Pickens.
    Tried before the Hon. S. H. Sprott.
    
      This 'was a statutory action of detinue brought by the appellee against the appellants, to recover certain pieces of machinery, together with the value of the hire and use during their detention. The defendants filed several special pleas, in which they set up the failure of consideration, and pleaded set off: and recoupment. The record shows that the plaintiff moved to strike these several pleas from the file. The judgment entry recites that this motion of the plaintiff was granted. There is no bill of exceptions in the record, and under the opinion on the present opinion it is unnecessary to set out at length these pleas and motions.
    From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff the defendants appeal, and assign as error the several rulings of the trial court to which exceptions were reserved.
    Willett & Willett, for appellants.
    Foster, Oliver & Cox, contra.
    
   TYSON, J.

There are a number of assignments of error upon the record, but all of them, except the last one, which is not insisted upon, are as to matters that should have been presented by bill of exceptions. Indeed the only ones that seem to be insisted on in brief of counsel for appellant are those involved in the action of the court in striking pleas 3-, 4 and 5 upon motion of plaintiff. With no bill of exceptions in the record the rulings of the court in this respect cannot be reviewed. Holley v. Coffee, 123 Ala. 406; Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Joseph, 125 Ala. 313; Cottingham v. Greely-Barnham Grocery Co., 129 Ala. 200; Randall v. Wadsworth, 130 Ala. 633; 3 Ency. Pl. & Pr. 400, 401; Elliott on App. Procedure, § 816.

Affirmed.