Court Opinion

ID: 9824679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:08:41.224659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:58.513954
License: Public Domain

On Application for Rehearing.
In Birmingham So. R. Co. v. Goodwyn, 202 Ala. 599, 81 South. 339, we clearly stated the rule limiting the review by this court of the decisions of the Court of Appeals, wherein that court has applied, whether affirmatively or negatively, the doctrine of error without injury to an erroneous ruling of the trial court:
“Where the opinion of the Court of Appeals affords, by its conclusive statement of its findings of fact, adequate basis or bases for the application of the doctrine of error without injury, looking to the affirmance of the judgment of the trial court, this court will, under the authority and duty imposed by section 140 of the Constitution, consider and determine whether the judgment should have been affirmed because the error, intervening in the trial court, was without injury to the appellant. McNeil v. Munson Lines, 184 Ala. 420, 63 South. 992.”
Manifestly, what we said on this subject in the original opinion was not intended to deny or impair this rule. The opinion of the Court of Appeals made no; reference to the question, nor did it contain any statement of fact, or condition of the record; which could supply a basis for a review of that question by this court. All that we meant to say was that in such a case we would not review the question, even if the opinion showed that it had been presented to and considered by the Court of Appeals.
It was certainly the duty of that court, under rule 45, to give due consideration to the question of error without injury in connection with tffe finding of error in the ruling of the trial court on the demurrer to the plea of set-off. If there has been a failure to do so, as complained by counsel, the responsibility must rest with t-hat court, for this court will not look to the record to find a basis for reviewing its action in that regard.
In Ex parte Eirst National Bank of Montgomery (First National Bank, etc., v. Williams), 206 Ala. 394, 90 South. 340, relied on by petitioner, the statement that “this court will review the action of the Court of Appeals in applying or denying that doctrine” was rested upon the authority of Birmingham So. R. Co. v. Goodwyn, supra, and must of course be taken with the qualifying limitation therein expressed. In the Bank Case just above referred to, the opinion of the Court of Appeals found and stated the facts upon which 'the conclusion of error without injury was basqd, thus bringing the case within the rule for review.
As to the ruling on demurrer that the plea of set-off was insufficient, we are still of the opinion that that ruling was correct.
The application for rehearing will be overruled.
All the Justices concur.