Case ID: ala_216/html/0168-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "GARDNER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(112 So. 835)
    NASH v. RATTRAY.
    (7 Div. 689.)
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    May 12, 1927.
    Appeal and error <&wkey;544( I) — Overruling motion to suppress depositions, giving affirmative charge for plaintiff and refusing such for defendant, are reviewable only by bill of exceptions.
    Whether the court erred in overruling defendant’s motion to suppress depositions' of plaintiff’s witnesses, in giving an affirmative charge for the plaintiff and in refusing an affirmative charge for the defendant, can be determined only on bill of exceptions.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, De Kalb County; W. W. Haralson, Judge.
    Action by A. M. Rattray, as administrator of the estate of E. W. Wood, deceased, against H. J. Nash, as administrator of the estate of Jennie Wood, deceased. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      John B. Isbell, of Ft. Payne, for appellant.
    Counsel argues the questions raised and cites Code 1923, §§ 7744-7762.
    Goodhue & Busk, of Gadsden, for appellee.
    The questions presented cannot be considered in absence of a bill of exceptions. Pate v. Baker, 15 Ala. App. 234, 73 So. 125; Garner v. Thach, 208 Ala. 11, 93 So. 416; Mauney V. Elec. Const. Co., 210 Ala. 554, 98 So. 874; Wood v. McClure, 209 Ala. 523, 96 So. 577; Sov. Camp y. Ward, 201 Ala. 446, 78 So. 824.
   GARDNER, J.

Action for money had and received. There was judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

The assignments of error relate only to the action of the court in overruling defendant’s motion to suppress the depositions of certain witnesses for the plaintiff, in giving the affirmative charge for the plaintiff, and refusing a like charge requested by defendant. These assignments of error present questions which are here reviewable only by bill of exceptions. Mauney v. Elec., etc., Co., 210 Ala. 554, 98 So. 874; Sov. Camp, W. O. W., v. Ward, 201 Ala. 446, 78 So. 824; Wood v. McClure, 209 Ala. 523, 96 So. 577; Garner v. Thach, 208 Ala. 11, 93 So. 416; Allen v. Mendelsohn & Son, 207 Ala. 527, 93 So. 416, 31 A. L. R. 1063. There is no bill of exceptions.

There are no assignments of error based upon the record proper. It results, therefore, that the judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

SAYRE, BOUBDIN, and BROWN, JJ., concur. 
      <§=jFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes