Doe Ex Dem. Windsor Realty Co. v. Finnegan
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.
The assignments of error are rested upon the refusal to grant the motion for a new trial by the Windsor Realty Company. This is the third appeal by that company. 202 Ala. 17, 79 So. 355; 210 Ala. 314, 97 So. 822.
In Godfrey v. Vinson (Ala. Sup.) 110 So. 13, 1 under Code of 1923, § 6434, held that bill of exceptions will not be stricken or disregarded by court ex mero motu because not presented or signed within the time prescribed by law, but only on motion to strike duly made and submitted with the cause.
Appellant’s counsel state that the sole assignment of error is the refusal of the court to…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- McMillan v. AikenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1920
- Anderson v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1922
- Godfrey v. VinsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1926
- Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. CarterSupreme Court of Alabama · 1924
- Watts v. EspySupreme Court of Alabama · 1924
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Commonwealth Life Ins. Co. v. ClarkAlabama Court of Appeals · 1933
- Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. TrammellAlabama Court of Appeals · 1953
- Commonwealth Life Ins. Co. v. BrandonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1936