Court Opinion

ID: 9939037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 19:05:02.386317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:43.615620
License: Public Domain

In the court below the plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant in a suit for malicious prosecution.
The appellant here (defendant below) asserts error on the following:
"1. The court erred in denying appellant's motion for a new trial set out on page 62 of the transcript herein. As reasons for the error of said court, the appellant sets forth the following a. The evidence in said cause is insufficient to support the verdict or judgment rendered therein.
"(b) The admission of the court of evidence, over objections and exceptions of appellant, which tended to show so called malicious acts of appellant subsequent to the time she swore out the so-called warrant for appellee.
"(c) The court erred in admitting evidence concerning a crop rented by appellee from J.F. Grimes."
It appears above that three matters or questions are made the subject of one assignment of error. Under these circumstances each insistence must be meritorious. In other words, a single assignment cannot be good in part and bad in part. Bryan v. Day, 228 Ala. 91, 151 So. 854; White v. Henry, 255 Ala. 7,49 So.2d 779; Tucker v. City of Birmingham, 35 Ala. App. 540,50 So.2d 777.
It is clearly apparent that subsections (b) and (c), supra, are not sufficiently specific to invite review.
It is the rule in the appellate courts of this state that an assignment of error which does not succinctly point out error complained of with sufficient clearness will not be reviewed on appeal. Snellings v. Jones, 33 Ala. App. 301, 33 So.2d 371; Jones v. Daniel, 34 Ala. App. 490, 41 So.2d 627; Baxter v. Wilson, 35 Ala. App. 196, 45 So.2d 474; Arrick v. Fanning,35 Ala. App. 409, 47 So.2d 708; Keel v. State, 35 Ala. App. 515,49 So.2d 320.
It follows therefore that all of assignment of error numbered 1 must fall under the weight of the unmeritorious character of the indicated subsections.
We think that another approach to this review would require an affirmance of the judgment below. *Page 268 
Appellant's attorney devotes about one-half page of legal cap paper, typed in double space, to "argument." It is extremely doubtful if the requirements of the rule are met. Powell v. Bingham, 29 Ala. App. 248, 196 So. 154; Thomas Frazer Lumber Co. v. Henson, 4 Ala. App. 625, 58 So. 812; Barfield v. Bartlett,23 Ala. App. 9, 119 So. 696; Republic Iron Steel Co. v. Quinton,194 Ala. 126, 69 So. 604.
The judgment below is ordered affirmed.
Affirmed.
 After Remandment