Sovereign Camp, W. O. W. v. Turner

3 Citing cases

  1. Wood v. Williams

    192 So. 421 (Ala. 1939)   Cited 3 times

    Code 1923, ยง 9513; Pearson v. City of Birmingham, 210 Ala. 296, 97 So. 916. And in as much as the note is not set out in the bill of exceptions, and the bill of exceptions does not purport to set out all the evidence, it will be assumed that evidence was offered which supports the conclusion and judgment of the trial court. Sandlin et al. v. Kennedy Stave Cooperage Co., 165 Ala. 577, 51 So. 622; City Cleaning Co. v. Birmingham Waterworks Co., 204 Ala. 51, 85 So. 291; Sovereign Camp, W. O. W., v. Turner, ante, p. 436, 191 So. 473. Section 6306 of the Code 1923, provides that: "Upon taking possession of any of the property and business of any bank or individual banker, the superintendent may collect moneys due to such corporation or individual banker and do such other acts as are necessary to conserve its assets and business, and shall proceed to liquidate the affairs thereof as hereinafter provided.

  2. Mooneyham v. State

    50 So. 2d 792 (Ala. Crim. App. 1951)   Cited 5 times

    This precludes our consideration of whether or not the affirmative charge was properly refused. York v. State, 34 Ala. App. 188, 39 So.2d 694; Sovereign Camp. W. O. W. v. Turner, 238 Ala. 436, 191 So. 473. This aside, we do not see how an examination of the exhibits that were omitted could have changed our view that a jury question was posed by the State's evidence.

  3. York v. State

    34 Ala. App. 188 (Ala. Crim. App. 1948)   Cited 42 times

    The rule has application when the motion is predicated on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence. Sovereign Camp, W. O. W. v. Turner, 238 Ala. 436, 191 So. 473; Mobile City Lines v. Alexander, 249 Ala. 107, 30 So.2d 4; Phelps v. State, 33 Ala. App. 89, 30 So.2d 38. There were comparatively few objections interposed during the progress of the introduction of the evidence.