McCormack Harvesting Machinery Co. v. Clayton
Supreme Court of Alabama
Assumpsit. Appeal from Crenshaw Circuit Court. Heard before Hon. J. C. Richardson. Action by the McCormack Harvesting Machinery Company in assumpsit against J. A. Clayton and others. From a judgment for defendants plaintiffs appeal. Counsel discuss the assignments of error but do not touch on the matter discussed in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. Appeal from Crenshaw Circuit Court. Heard before Hon. J. C. Richardson. Action by the McCormack Harvesting Machinery Company in assumpsit against J. A. Clayton and others. From a judgment for defendants plaintiffs appeal. Counsel discuss the assignments of error but do not touch on the matter discussed in the opinion. The original order granting the extension of time does not appear of record and it does not appear that the bill was signed in accordance with tbe provisions of tbe statute. — Central of Ca. By. Co. v. Carroll, 41 South. 579; Dantzler v.- Swift Creek Mill Co., 128…
1Opinion of the CourtAnderson, J.
This case was tried at the regular term of court wbicb convened under operation of law on the second Monday in September, 1905, and wbicb could continue two weeks. the bill of exceptions was signed the 27tb day of February, 1906. There is nothing in the. record proper, showing that any time was. given for the signing of the bill of exceptions after the adjournment of court. the bill of exceptions shows that sixty clays was given and the record shows several orders of extension, but the first extension is not disclosed by the record and is merely shown in the bill of exceptions wbicb is…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dantzler & Sons v. Swift Creek Mill Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1900
- Peterman v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1903
3Cited by1 opinion
- Brooke v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1908