From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Walker v. Dutton

Supreme Court of Alabama
Jul 2, 1981
401 So. 2d 32 (Ala. 1981)

Summary

holding a party adversely affected by a ruling must apprise the trial court of any objection to the ruling and the grounds for such objections in order to preserve the issue for appeal

Summary of this case from Renasant Bank v. Clark

Opinion

80-39.

July 2, 1981.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dale County, P.B. McLauchlin, Jr., J.

Sidney H. Walker, Ozark, for appellants.

No brief for appellee.


Sidney H. Walker and Mobus, Inc., plaintiffs below, appeal from a final judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of defendant, James E. Dutton, in an action for breach of contract.

Sidney Walker, James Dutton, and a third party formed a computer service corporation: Mobus, Inc. Walker alleged that pursuant to the terms of an oral agreement between him and Dutton, he advanced Dutton education and living expenses for which Dutton was to write computer programs for, organize, and manage Mobus, Inc. Walker allegedly was to be repaid for the advances to Dutton from receipts of Mobus, Inc. Allegedly, Dutton refused to perform and as a result Walker and Mobus, Inc. were unable to recover the monies advanced to Dutton.

Walker and Mobus, Inc. assert there is reversible error shown in the record on account of the trial court's refusal to give plaintiffs' requested charge regarding equitable estoppel; the jury instructions, overall, were prejudicial to plaintiffs' case; the charge regarding an affirmative defense was an incorrect statement of the law; and relevant and material evidence offered by plaintiffs was disallowed.

A careful examination of the record discloses no preservation of any alleged error regarding the actions of the trial court of which plaintiffs complain. Rule 51, ARCP, explicitly provides that no party may assign as error the giving or failing to give a written instruction or the giving of an erroneous, misleading, incomplete or otherwise improper oral charge unless he objects thereto, stating the matter to be which he objects and the grounds of his objection. No objections were made in this case.

Concerning the trial court's actions disallowing evidence offered by plaintiffs; we are not able to find that objections were made in that regard. Rule 46, ARCP, requires the party adversely affected to apprise the trial court of his objections and the grounds for such objections. C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 429.01 (3d ed. 1977). Plaintiffs made no objections to the trial court's rulings; as a consequence, no error was preserved in that regard.

There being no error in the record, the judgment below is due to be and is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C.J., and FAULKNER, ALMON and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Walker v. Dutton

Supreme Court of Alabama
Jul 2, 1981
401 So. 2d 32 (Ala. 1981)

holding a party adversely affected by a ruling must apprise the trial court of any objection to the ruling and the grounds for such objections in order to preserve the issue for appeal

Summary of this case from Renasant Bank v. Clark
Case details for

Walker v. Dutton

Case Details

Full title:Sidney H. WALKER and Mobus, Inc. v. James E. DUTTON

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Jul 2, 1981

Citations

401 So. 2d 32 (Ala. 1981)

Citing Cases

Ex Parte Walters

Rita asserts that Edward did not properly preserve the issue of attorney fees for review. In support of this…

Whitfield v. Burttram

Rule 51, ARCP, requires that one who disputes a jury charge object and state the matters about which he…