Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Alabama Volume 136 (Paperback)


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1903 edition. Excerpt: ... McCain Bros. v. Street.] bent filed by the claimants, from which any injury resulted to them. This plea might have properly been stricken from the file on motion. The plea could only be filed by the defendant in attachment, -- 5G3, Code of 1896. The matter set up in abatement was not such as the claimants could take advantage of. Moreover, the record shows that an affidavit was made by the plaintiff before the issuance of the attachment, but was not subscribed to, and was afterwards amended, which was permissible.-- 564, Code of 1896. The question as to a variance between bond and affidavit, if one that the claimants could raise, cannot bo raised for the first time after appeal to this court.-- Fears c. Thompson, 82 Ala. 294. The case was tried by the court without a jury. At the request of the claimants, there was a special finding by the court on the facts. Whether this was proper and authorized under the special act creating the countv court of Clay--Local Acts 1898-9, pp. 176-182--which provides the rules of practice as to trials by jury or by the court, we need not decide. In the absence of a statute prescribing a different rule, the special finding of the court, and the judgment rendered on such special finding, cannot be reviewed on appeal, unless presented by bill of exceptions. There is no provision in the special act creating the countv court of Clay, which prescribes a different rule from that above stated. There is no bill of exceptions in the record, and the judgment, therefore, cannot be reviewed. Affirmed. Oklahoma Vinegar Co. v. Kaupp.] Oklahoma Vinegar Co. v. Kaupp. Action of AXsumpist. 1. Appeal from justice of the peace; sufficiency of judgment recital in statement.--Where an appeal has been taken from a...

R657

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles6570
Mobicred@R62pm x 12* Mobicred Info
Free Delivery
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1903 edition. Excerpt: ... McCain Bros. v. Street.] bent filed by the claimants, from which any injury resulted to them. This plea might have properly been stricken from the file on motion. The plea could only be filed by the defendant in attachment, -- 5G3, Code of 1896. The matter set up in abatement was not such as the claimants could take advantage of. Moreover, the record shows that an affidavit was made by the plaintiff before the issuance of the attachment, but was not subscribed to, and was afterwards amended, which was permissible.-- 564, Code of 1896. The question as to a variance between bond and affidavit, if one that the claimants could raise, cannot bo raised for the first time after appeal to this court.-- Fears c. Thompson, 82 Ala. 294. The case was tried by the court without a jury. At the request of the claimants, there was a special finding by the court on the facts. Whether this was proper and authorized under the special act creating the countv court of Clay--Local Acts 1898-9, pp. 176-182--which provides the rules of practice as to trials by jury or by the court, we need not decide. In the absence of a statute prescribing a different rule, the special finding of the court, and the judgment rendered on such special finding, cannot be reviewed on appeal, unless presented by bill of exceptions. There is no provision in the special act creating the countv court of Clay, which prescribes a different rule from that above stated. There is no bill of exceptions in the record, and the judgment, therefore, cannot be reviewed. Affirmed. Oklahoma Vinegar Co. v. Kaupp.] Oklahoma Vinegar Co. v. Kaupp. Action of AXsumpist. 1. Appeal from justice of the peace; sufficiency of judgment recital in statement.--Where an appeal has been taken from a...

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

Rarebooksclub.com

Country of origin

United States

Release date

October 2012

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

October 2012

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 15mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

292

ISBN-13

978-1-153-95436-5

Barcode

9781153954365

Categories

LSN

1-153-95436-2



Trending On Loot