TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ex parte Barrett Bros. Shipping

Ex Parte Barrett Brothers Shipping Co.

Ex parte Barrett Bros. Shipping, 72 So. 259 (Ala. 1916)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Alabama · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 8, 1916
Judges
Gardner, McClellan, Sayre, Thomas
Citations
72 So. 259196 Ala. 6551916 Ala. LEXIS 502
Disposition
Writ denied.
Headnotes
Assumpsit. 1. Appeal and Error; Review; Court of Appeals. — The Supreme Court will not review the findings or conclusions of the Court of Appeals on matters of fact only, nor review such findings nor conclusions to ascertain whether the legal principles applied by that court to the facts should have been applied thereto. 2. Evidence; Documentary. — Daily reports made in the regular course of business in the nature of original entries are admissible in evidence and are prima facie correct.
Summary
Certiorari to Court of Appeals. Application by Barrett Brothers Shipping Company for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment of said court in the case of C. H. Minge & Co. v. Barrett Bros. Shipping Co., 14 Ala. App. 468, 70 South. 962.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — McClellan

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

McCLELLAN, J.

This petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals is to review the conclusions of that court as set forth in Minge & Co. v. Barrett Bros., 14 Ala. App. 468 , 70 South. 962 -965; the particular rulings of the court against which complaint is made being set down in the response to the application for rehearing.

(1) The first ground of criticism of opinion and of conclusion is predicated of the asserted error of the court in its finding on the facts. It is settled here that this court will not, in observance of its duty under section 140 of the Constitution, review the findings or conclusions of the Court of Appeals upon matters of fact only, nor review such findings or conclusions with the view to the ascertainment or determination of the inquiry, whether legal principles applied by that court to the decision of the appeal should have been applied thereto.- — Ex parte Steverson, 177 Ala. 384, 389 , 58 South. 992 ; Ex parte Savannah Williams, 182 Ala. 34, 37 , 62 South. 63 ; Ex parte State, 181 Ala. 4, 8 , 61 South. 53 ; Ex parte Burnett, 180 Ala. 540, 541 , 61 South. 920 .

(2) The other criticism is based upon the ruling that the trial court’s failure to exclude, on motion, the “consolidated report,” a “report” made up from the daily reports, was error. The Court of Appeals did not intend to rule that the “daily reports,” made by the defendant’s agent in the regular course of business, were inadmissible unless their correctness was otherwise shown. They were, if so made,, in the nature of original entries, and prima facie correct.

The writ is denied.

Sayre, Gardner, and Thomas, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1916: 11919: 11920: 31972: 119162026peak 1920 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Shirley v. Southern Ry. Co.73 So. 430 (Ala. 1916)
  2. Cochran v. Cochran269 So. 2d 897 (Ala. 1972)
  3. Ex Parte McNeil85 So. 569 (Ala. 1920)
  4. Gray v. Burdette86 So. 96 (Ala. 1920)
  5. Ex Parte Central of Georgia Railway Co.82 So. 345 (Ala. 1919)
  6. North Alabama Traction Co. v. McNeil85 So. 569 (Ala. 1920)

Most recent

  1. Cochran v. Cochran269 So. 2d 897 (Ala. 1972)
  2. Gray v. Burdette86 So. 96 (Ala. 1920)
  3. Ex Parte McNeil85 So. 569 (Ala. 1920)
  4. North Alabama Traction Co. v. McNeil85 So. 569 (Ala. 1920)
  5. Ex Parte Central of Georgia Railway Co.82 So. 345 (Ala. 1919)
  6. Shirley v. Southern Ry. Co.73 So. 430 (Ala. 1916)

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
Ex parte Steverson, 58 So. 992 (Ala. 1912) 25
Ex parte State, 61 So. 53 (Ala. 1912) 20
Ex parte Williams, 62 So. 63 (Ala. 1913) 17
Minge & Co. v. Barrett Bros. Shipping Co., 70 So. 962 (Ala. Ct. App. 1916) 3
Ex parte Burnett, 61 So. 920 (Ala. 1913) 1

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