Wrenn v. Baker
Wrenn v. Baker. Assumpsit
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
EVANS, J.
The transcript in this appeal shows that the judgment below was obtained op December 6, 191.5, and the bill *435 of exceptions was presented to the trial judge on March 8, 1916 —93 days after the entry of judgment, (1)
Under the authorities, the limitation of 90 days for the presentation of a bill of exceptions is jurisdictional, and an instrument signed by the trial judge, but not presented within the required time, is no bill of exceptions.
— Box v. South. Ry. Co., 184 Ala. 598 , 64 South. 69 ;
Hartselle & Co. v. Wilhite, 3 Ala. App. 612 , 57 South. 129 ;
Edinburgh-American Land Mortgage Co. v. Canterbury, 169 Ala. 444 , 53 South. 823 ;
Smith v. State, 166 Ala. 24 , 52 South. 396 ;
Harper v. State, 13 Ala. App. 47 , 69 South. 302 .
(2)
Section 3020, Code 1907, forbidding appellate courts to strike a bill of exceptions mero motu, applies tó the unseasonable signing by the judge, and not to the unseasonable presentation of the bill to him.
— Box v. South. Ry. Co., supra; Harper’s Case, supra; Hartselle & Co. v. Wilhite, supra.
In the absence of a bill of exceptions, there is no question presented for our review. The judgment must be affirmed.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.