Haden v. Brown
Supreme Court of Alabama
MOTION by tbe defendants in error to strike tbe bill of exceptions from tbe record, because it appeared on its face to have been signed by tbe presiding judge after tbe adjournment of tbe court.
Read the full summary
MOTION by tbe defendants in error to strike tbe bill of exceptions from tbe record, because it appeared on its face to have been signed by tbe presiding judge after tbe adjournment of tbe court. Tbe counsel for the plaintiff in error, E. W. Peck, submitted an affidavit, setting forth that tbe exceptions were taken during tbe progress of tbe trial in tbe court below; that tbe bill was prepared by himself, as counsel for tbe plaintiff, and J. J. Ormond, as counsel for defendant, and was submitted to tbe presiding judge several days before tbe adjournment of' court, in order that be might write…
1Opinion of the CourtGoldthwaite, J.
A motion is submitted in this case,, on tbe part of tbe defendants in error, to strike tbe bill of exceptions from the-record, upon the ground that it appears, on its face, to have been signed by tbe presiding judge after tbe adjournment of the court at which tbe trial was bad. Tbe fact that it was so signed, is conceded by tbe counsel for tbe *573plaintiffs in error; but be has offered affidavits, wbicb, as be insists, sbow a state of facts wbicb should, in law, exclude tbe present case from tbe operation of tbe act of 1844, (Pamphlet Acts 1843-4, p. 5,) upon wbicb tbe motion is predicated.
This…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Kitchen v. MoyeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1849
- Wood's Adm'r v. BrownSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845
3Cited by9 opinions
- Ex Parte HillSupreme Court of Alabama · 1921
- Baker v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1910
- Union India Rubber Co. v. MitchellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1861
- Morris v. Brannen & SonsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1893
- Bradberry v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1910
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.