Court Opinion

ID: 9671596
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:40:03.889567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:41.760952
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
COLEMAN, Justice.
In support of application for rehearing, appellee argues that we erred on original deliverance in holding that Assignment 3 alleged error sufficiently so as to authorize review.
■'Appellee. says Assignment 3 is almost identical with Assignments 2 and 3 which were held insufficient in Thomas v. Brook, 274 Ala. 462, 149 So.2d 809. In Assignments 2 and 3, in Brook, appellant did not allege that the trial court erred. In Assignment 3 in the instant case appellant does allege that “The trial court erred . . . .” In at least this respect, the instant Assignment 3 is distinguished from Assignments 2 and 3 in Brook. Whether there are other distinctions we do not decide.
Appellee says further that Assignment 3 in the instant case is insufficient to invite review because of a holding of this court stated as follows:
“Appellant’s eighth assignment of error is that ‘The Court erred in holding that the evidence introduced by appellee, the Complainant in the Court below, was sufficient upon which the Court could base its decree of August 31, 1962.’ Such an assignment of error is entirely too general and presents nothing for review. Bertolla v. Kaiser, 267 Ala. 435, 103 So. 2d 736.” Davenport v. Davenport, 276 Ala. 87, 90, 159 So.2d 204, 207.
The decree appealed from in Davenport is set out in the opinion. The decree contains more than one ruling. , For example, the court grants divorce, awards attorney’s fee, awards alimony, denies sale of property, and fixes a lien on the husband’s property. The eighth assignment was too general because appellant failed, in that assignment, to point out the precise ruling complained of. Where there are several rulings, to any one of which the language of the assignment might equally apply, the assignment manifestly fails to designate the precise error to be reviewed. If the assignment is uncertain and indefinite as to the particular error complained of, this court will decline to consider it. Beasley-Bennett. Electric Co. v. Gulf Coast Chapter etc., 273 Ala. 32, 35, 36, 134 So.2d 427.
Instant Assignment 3 does point out the precise error complained of, to wit: the holding that the husband was divorced *71from the wife. The difference between the assignments is that the eighth assignment in Davenport did not point out precisely the error complained of, while Assignment 3 in the instant case does point out precisely the error complained of.
Appellee complains also that we erred in holding that the evidence does not show that the wife intentionally brought about the separation or that it was the result of her misconduct. We Undertook to consider the evidence at length on original deliverance and adhere to our original opinion. Further discussion would serve no useful purpose.
Opinion extended.
Application overruled.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON ■and MERRILL, JJ., concur.