Legal Opinion

Erwin v. Erwin

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided October 8, 1959No. 8 Div. 993PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MERRILL, Justice.

There being no assignment of error “bound with the transcript,” an order of affirmance is due to be entered, and it is so ordered. Supreme Court Rule 1, Code 1940, Tit. 7 Appendix; Crim v. Gilbert, 267 Ala. 665, 104 So.2d 632; Southern Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Holmes, 265 Ala. 48, 89 So.2d 530; Stidham v. Stidham, 264 Ala. 195, 86 So.2d 294; Patterson v. Gains, 264 Ala. 183, 85 So.2d 892; Wetzel v. Hobbs, 249 Ala. 434, 31 So.2d 639, and Nichols v. Hardegree, 202 Ala. 132, 79 So. 598.

Affirmed.

LAWSON, STAKELY, GOODWYN and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Wetzel v. HobbsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1947
  2. Stidham v. StidhamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1956
  3. Southern Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. HolmesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1956
  4. Crim v. GilbertSupreme Court of Alabama · 1958
  5. Patterson v. GainsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1955

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Trussell v. RippsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1964
  2. Hemphill v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1961
  3. Watson v. City of DothanAlabama Court of Appeals · 1966
  4. Morris v. MorrisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1965
  5. Thompson v. City of FlorenceAlabama Court of Appeals · 1961