Johnson v. Frix

7 Citing cases

  1. Burke v. City of Birmingham

    159 So. 367 (Ala. Crim. App. 1935)   Cited 4 times

    Code 1923, § 6433; Ex parte Hill, 205 Ala. 631, 89 So. 58. It is permissible to show by affidavit that a bill of exceptions was not signed or presented within the time required by law. Johnson v. Frix, 177 Ala. 251, 58 So. 427; Buck Creek Lbr. Co. v. Nelson, 188 Ala. 243, 66 So. 476; Johnson v. Frix, 177 Ala. 251, 58 So. 427; Buck Creek Lbr. Co. v. Nelson, 188 Ala. 243, 66 So. 476. Ruling on motion for new trial cannot be reviewed where it is not set out in the bill of exceptions. Basenberg v. Lawrence, 160 Ala. 422, 49 So. 771. In absence of a bill of exceptions, the giving or refusal of written charges will not be reviewed.

  2. Clark v. Henderson

    12 So. 2d 743 (Ala. 1943)   Cited 8 times
    In Clark v. Henderson, 244 Ala. 237, 12 So.2d 743, the bill of exceptions was stricken on motion made when the bill of exceptions was, in fact, filed after the time provided by law, and the like rule obtains as to changing the same after such undue filing.

    Buck Creek Lbr. Co. v. Nelson, 188 Ala. 243, 244, 66 So. 476. This failure may also be shown by affidavit. Johnson v. Frix, 177 Ala. 251, 58 So. 427." [Italics and brackets supplied.

  3. Southern Ry. Co. v. Scottsboro Wholesale Co.

    134 So. 685 (Ala. Crim. App. 1931)   Cited 1 times

    And it may be shown by parol proof that the bill was not signed on the date shown by the judge's certificate. Johnson v. Frix, 177 Ala. 251, 58 So. 427; Louisville N. R. Co. v. Malone, 116 Ala. 600, 22 So. 897; Leeth v. Kornman-Sawyer Co., 2 Ala. App. 311, 56 So. 757; Bain v. Lang, 18 Ala. App. 697, 94 So. 251; Ex parte Walker, 149 Ala. 637, 43 So. 130. SAMFORD, J.

  4. Buchannon v. Buchannon

    220 Ala. 72 (Ala. 1929)   Cited 26 times
    In Buchannon v. Buchannon, supra [ 220 Ala. 72, 124 So. 115], Mr. Justice Bouldin, in writing to this question for the court, said: "We find nothing in the statute nor in the policy behind exemption laws, which would limit the widow's right to interpose her claim to the period during which the status as to minority of children existing at the time of decedent's death still continues."

    Such fact may be shown by affidavit filed in this court in support of the motion. Johnson v. Frix, 177 Ala. 251, 58 So. 427; Buck Creek Lumber Co. v. Nelson, 188 Ala. 243, 66 So. 476. The motion to strike must be granted.

  5. Elder v. Ralls Sanitarium

    219 Ala. 298 (Ala. 1929)   Cited 12 times

    It may be shown by affidavit that the bill of exceptions was presented by plaintiff, although the record shows it was presented by defendant. Brannan v. Sherry, 195 Ala. 272, 71 So. 106; Shipp v. Shelton, 193 Ala. 658, 69 So. 102; Rice v. Beavers, 196 Ala. 355, 71 So. 659; Johnson v. Frix, 177 Ala. 251, 58 So. 427; Williams v. State, 205 Ala. 76, 87 So. 530; Sheffield Co. v. Harris, 183 Ala. 357, 61 So. 88; Mauney v. Elec. Const. Co., 210 Ala. 554, 98 So. 874. The use of the word "defendant" instead of "plaintiff" was a clerical error, and self-correcting.

  6. BAIN v. LANG

    94 So. 251 (Ala. Crim. App. 1922)   Cited 2 times

    It may be shown by affidavit that a bill of exceptions was not presented and signed within the time allowed by law, although it appears on its face to have been presented to and signed by the trial judge within such time. Johnson v. Frix, 177 Ala. 251, 58 So. 427; Cameron v. North B'ham Saving Bank, 17 Ala. App. 210, 84 So. 569; Dement v. Central of Ga. R. Co. 202 Ala. 498, 80 So. 882. Application overruled.

  7. Hill v. State

    88 So. 295 (Ala. Crim. App. 1920)

    Sections 3018, 3019, Code 1907; 202 Ala. 37, 80 So. 75; 54 So. 613; 77 So. 934. Where the bill of exceptions is not signed by the trial judge within the time allowed, it is not part of the record, and must be stricken. Section 3020, Code 1907; 189 Ala. 672, 66 So. 646; 69 So. 604; 3 Ala. App. 612, 57 So. 129; 177 Ala. 251, 58 So. 428; 188 Ala. 243, 66 So. 476. PER CURIAM.