Standard Paint & Lead Works, Inc. v. Ingram Hardware Co.
STANDARD PAINT & LEAD WORKS, Inc., v. INGRAM HARDWARE CO.
Opinion of the Court
ANDERSON, O. J.
The first three assignments of error, as well as the chief argumentan brief of appellant’s counsel, relate to the action of the trial court in refusing the appellant’s motion for a new trial. It is sufficient to say that the bill of exceptions does not disclose any exception to the action of the trial court in overruling the motion for a new trial. The fact that this may appear in the record proper will not suffice. Grace v. Old Dominion Garment Co., 213 Ala. 550 , 105 So. 707 , and cases there cited. We cannot therefore review the action of the trial court in refusing the. motion for a new trial.
The appellant was not injured by the question embodied in the fourth assignment of error asked by 'opposing counsel, as the witness gave a negative answer thereto.
The question asked the defendant, and embodied in the fifth assignment of error, was not patently improper and was not subject to the grounds of objection assigned thereto. It did not, on its face, tend to contradict the written instrument, and merely sought the representation or inducement leading up to the 'execution of said instrument. If the answer disclosed improper evidence there should have been a motion to exclude same.
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.