TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hogg v. Jenifer Iron Co.

Hogg v. Jenifer Iron Co., 112 So. 207 (Ala. 1927)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Alabama · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 24, 1927
Docket
No. 6 Div. 696.
Judges
Brown, Anderson, Somerville, Thomas
Citations
112 So. 207215 Ala. 6831927 Ala. LEXIS 619

Opinion of the Court — Brown

BROWN, J.

This appeal is from the final decree rendered on a submission of the cause on the pleading and proof, and is here submitted without suggestion of a diminution of the record, or motion for certiorari to perfect it, under rule 19 of Supreme Court Practice (Code 1923, vol. 4, p. 885).

It is conceded by the appellant that the record is incomplete in that a part of the testimony — that given orally in the presence of the trial court and taken in shorthand by the court reporter — embraced in the submission, is omitted from the record. We find appended to the record a petition praying for mandamus or other appropriate writ, to be directed to the trial court or its officers, to compel transcription of the oral testimony and certification of the same, as a part of the record, but there is no submission on this petition, nor was it called to the court’s attention at the time of the submission.

The rule of practice, 19, supra, provides the parties, on the suggestion of a diminution of the record and motion for certiorari, a remedy to perfect the record, and it was the duty of the appellant, before submitting his case, to pursue this remedy; but, having submitted the case without doing so, the court has no other alternative than to dispose of the case on the record. as it now stands;

The record shows no rulings on the demurrers to the bill, nor on the motions made the basis of the assignments of error, and, it appearing that the record does not contain all of the testimony upon which the case was submitted to the trial court, we cannot review the finding on the facts.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. J., and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1931: 11941: 11947: 11955: 11956: 11957: 11958: 11960: 11968: 119312026peak 1931 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Gossett v. Pratt34 So. 2d 145 (Ala. 1947)
  2. Eaton v. Shene212 So. 2d 596 (Ala. 1968)
  3. Ruck v. Ruck89 So. 2d 274 (Ala. 1956)
  4. Allen v. Allen135 So. 169 (Ala. 1931)
  5. Bowlin v. Bowlin104 So. 2d 630 (Ala. 1958)
  6. Williams v. Schaeffer80 So. 2d 722 (Ala. 1955)

Most recent

  1. Eaton v. Shene212 So. 2d 596 (Ala. 1968)
  2. Welch v. State123 So. 2d 205 (Ala. 1960)
  3. Bowlin v. Bowlin104 So. 2d 630 (Ala. 1958)
  4. Local No. 157 of the International Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers v. Local No. 4202 United Steel Workers96 So. 2d 297 (Ala. 1957)
  5. Ruck v. Ruck89 So. 2d 274 (Ala. 1956)
  6. Williams v. Schaeffer80 So. 2d 722 (Ala. 1955)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list