From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Erwin v. Erwin

Supreme Court of Alabama
Oct 8, 1959
114 So. 2d 918 (Ala. 1959)

Opinion

8 Div. 993.

October 8, 1959.

Appeal from the Law and Equity Court, Franklin County, W. H. Quillin, J.

C. E. Carmichael, Jr., Tuscumbia, for appellant.

H. Neil Taylor, Russellville, for appellee.


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.


Summaries of

Erwin v. Erwin

Supreme Court of Alabama
Oct 8, 1959
114 So. 2d 918 (Ala. 1959)
Case details for

Erwin v. Erwin

Case Details

Full title:Charles D. ERWIN v. Ann Marie Burns ERWIN

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Oct 8, 1959

Citations

114 So. 2d 918 (Ala. 1959)
269 Ala. 632

Citing Cases

Watson v. City of Dothan

(Italics added.) "Bound with the transcript" was emphasized in Erwin v. Erwin, 269 Ala. 632, 114 So.2d 918.…

Trussell v. Ripps

Appellee's motion, though superfluous, is due to be granted. Had no motion been filed, the judgment would of…