41 So. 780 | Ala. | 1906
— There was no error committed by the court in overruling the objections of the appellant, the defendant in the co-urt below, to certain parts of the deposition of the witness Ward. This evidence was responsive to the interrogatories propounded to said witness and no- objections were made to the questions. The objections to the answers and the motions- to exclude, therefore, came too late.—Insurance Co. v. Tillis, 110 Ala. 201, 17 South. 672; R. R. Co. v. Bailey, 112 Ala. 177, 20 South. 313; Curtis v. Parker, 136 Ala. 224, 33 South. 935.
Both parties derived title through Margaret Jenkins and M. J. Jenkins. The fact that M. J. Jenkins -joined
There was no error committed in refusing to give the general affirmative charge requested by the defendant. The judgment appealed from will be affirmed-
Affirmed..