Court Opinion

ID: 9688927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:13:15.728299+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:43.041350
License: Public Domain

■ HARWOOD, Justice
(concurring specially) .
I concur in the result reached in this case.
However, I am not in accord with that part of the majority opinion which holds in effect that assignments of error need not contain a reference to the place in the transcript where the ruling made the basis of the assignment may be found. True, Supreme Court Rule 1 docs not in words so require, but we have heretofore treated such requirement as being implicit.
In Mothershed v. Mothershed, 274 Ala. 528, 150 So.2d 372, we said:
“Neither assignment discloses where such rulings may be found in the record. For this reason, if for no other, these assignments should not be considered.”
In Orso v. Cater, 272 Ala. 657, 133 So.2d 864, we held:
“Furthermore, there was no citation in the assignment of error on the transcript page on which the alleged error could be found.”
Again, in Brooks v. Everett, 271 Ala. 354, 124 So.2d 105, it is stated:
“Some” (assignments of error) “are without merit because they do not point out where the alleged error appears in the transcript.”
The majority opinion correctly observes that where assignments point to wrong pages of the transcript they may'be avoided. Sharpe v. Hughes, 202 Ala. 509, 80 So. 797; Crews & Green v. Parker, 192 Ala. 383, 68 So. 287; Meador-Pasley Co. v. Owen, 222 Ala. 392, 133 So. 35.
My concern is that the present holding may be taken to mean that assignments of error may omit any reference to the place in the,transcript where questioned rulings are to be found, and yet be considered, by this court, and that consideration of assignments may be pretermitted only when an grronous reference is made. If this be the result of the holding in the present case, the labors of this court will be greatly increased, particularly when a record contains hundreds of pages.
Further, I am unwilling to commit myself to the proposition that references- in the brief to assignments of error in the “transcript of the evidence” rather than to the “transcript of the record” inevitably constitutes an improper reference necessitating condemnation of the assignment. Süch a holding I regard as hypertechnical.