TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wrenn v. Baker

Wrenn v. Baker. Assumpsit

Wrenn v. Baker, 73 So. 756 (Ala. Ct. App. 1916)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Alabama Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 19, 1916
Judges
Evans
Citations
73 So. 75615 Ala. App. 4341916 Ala. App. LEXIS 215
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Assumpsit. 1. Bill of Exceptions; Presentation; Time. — The presentation to the trial judge of the bill of exceptions within 90 days from the date of the judgment is jurisdictional, and an instrument presented after the lapse of that time is not a bill of exceptions, although signed by the trial judge. 2. Same; Striking. — The provisions of § 3020, Code 1907,» has application to the unseasonable signing by the judge of the bill of exceptions, and not the unseasonable presentation of the bill to him.
Summary
Appeal from Coosa Circuit Court. Heard before Hon. S. L. Brewer. Assumpsit by D. W. Baker against M. J. Wrenn. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals.

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

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.

1918: 11920: 21922: 21923: 11924: 11944: 119182026peak 1920 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Wright v. McCullough80 So. 149 (Ala. Ct. App. 1918)
  2. Williams v. State87 So. 530 (Ala. 1920)
  3. Williams v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.92 So. 471 (Ala. 1922)
  4. First Nat. Bank of Lawrenceburg v. Morrow98 So. 34 (Ala. Ct. App. 1923)
  5. Peoples v. State99 So. 658 (Ala. Ct. App. 1924)
  6. Fuller v. State93 So. 278 (Ala. Ct. App. 1922)

Most recent

  1. Spalding v. McKnight154 P.2d 312 (Wyo. 1944)
  2. Peoples v. State99 So. 658 (Ala. Ct. App. 1924)
  3. First Nat. Bank of Lawrenceburg v. Morrow98 So. 34 (Ala. Ct. App. 1923)
  4. Fuller v. State93 So. 278 (Ala. Ct. App. 1922)
  5. Williams v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.92 So. 471 (Ala. 1922)
  6. Williams v. State87 So. 530 (Ala. 1920)

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 5

DepthCaseCited by
Hartselle & Co. v. Wilhite, 57 So. 129 (Ala. Ct. App. 1911) 7
Edinburgh-Am. Land Mortg. Co. v. Canterbury, 53 So. 823 (Ala. 1910) 28
Box v. Southern Ry. Co., 64 So. 69 (Ala. 1913) 27
Harper v. State, 69 So. 302 (Ala. Ct. App. 1915) 14
Smith v. State, 52 So. 396 (Ala. 1910) 11

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