Case Title: Sharp v. ELLIOTSVILLE CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIAN CH.

Citation: 192 So. 2d 718

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1966-12-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
192 So. 2d 718 (1966)
Elma Still SHARP et al.
v.
ELLIOTSVILLE CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
7 Div. 737.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
December 8, 1966.
Coleman & Hancock, Birmingham, for appellants.
Karl C. Harrison, Columbiana, for appellee.
*719 COLEMAN, Justice.
Complainants appeal from a decree establishing a disputed boundary line as claimed by respondent in its cross bill.
Appellants have made eight assignments of error. The argument section of appellants' brief, including certificate of service, covers only five pages. No assignment is referred to in argument by number or substance. In the first paragraph of argument, appellants do refer to appellee's cross-bill and appellants' demurrer thereto, and we will take this first paragraph as intended to be an argument in support of assignment 1 which recites:
On page 12 of the transcript, the only entry which purports to be, or to have reference to, any ruling on a demurrer recites as follows:
Only a formal adjudication by the court will support an appeal or assignment of error. Cooper v. Mann, 269 Ala. 505, 114 So. 2d 267; Birmingham Railway & Electric Co. v. Baker, 126 Ala. 135, 28 So. 87. When judged by the standards set out in the cases cited and the authorities referred to therein, the quoted entry from page 12 does not show a formal adjudication on the demurrer, and, therefore, assignment 1 is not sustained by the record and shows no ground for reversal.
The remainder of appellants' argument appears to be in support of assignment 8 and other assignments which assert the same error that is asserted in assignment 8, which recites:
Appellants say in argument: "There is no evidence of any nature to substantiate the decree in this aspect"; and appellants "respectfully request that said decree be set aside and a boundary line decreed between appellants and appellees' property, based upon the record title and survey as alleged in the complainants' bill of complaint."
Assignment 8 is an assignment of "the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict or finding in fact or law." When such an assignment is made, then the statement of facts "shall contain a condensed recital of the evidence given by each witness in narrative form bearing on the points in issue so as to fully present the substance of the testimony of the witness clearly and concisely." Supreme Court Rule 9, Appendix, Title 7, 1958 Recompilation of Code 1940; 261 Ala. XXII.
In the instant case, the evidence covers one hundred and eighty-seven transcript pages. Eighteen witnesses testified. Appellants have mentioned in their brief the names of all eighteen witnesses, but it is not clear that appellants have set out in narrative form the entire, pertinent testimony of all the witnesses. The entire statement of facts covers not more than seven pages of appellants' brief.
We note the following excerpt from the statement of the testimony in appellants' brief:
The foregoing quotation from appellants' brief is their entire narrative statement of the testimony of eight witnesses which covers eighty pages of the transcript.
The court decreed that the true line is determined by beginning in the center of a marble or limestone marker and running specified courses and distances
We are of opinion that we must affirm the decree for one or the other of two reasons. If appellants have not fully presented the substance of the pertinent testimony of all witnesses clearly and concisely, then appellants have not complied with Rule 9 and
If, however, appellants have set out all pertinent evidence, then the statement which we have quoted from appellants' brief shows that there is evidence to support the court's finding that the true line is the line of the old fence. There may be evidence to the contrary, but it seems to us that the statement of facts in appellants' brief shows substantial evidence to support the decree.
The well established rule by which this court is to be guided in the instant case is that the finding of fact by the trial court will not here be disturbed unless we are persuaded that it is plainly and palpably wrong. Ex parte State ex rel. Grace, 224 Ala. 273, 139 So. 288.
This court will not disturb a decree of the trial court, where the witnesses testify orally before the court, unless we are satisfied that the decree is palpably wrong. Hale v. Hale, 259 Ala. 666, 68 So. 2d 63.
Under the rule, the instant decree is due to be and is affirmed.
Affirmed.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON and GOODWYN, JJ., concur.