History
  • No items yet
midpage
Hodges v. Wallace
157 Ala. 453
Ala.
1908
Check Treatment
SIMPSON, J.

— In this case the appellants do not insist on the assignments in regard to rulings on demurrers, hut only on those assignments regarding rulings on motions to strike replications, rejoinders, and rebutters. As neither the motions nor said pleadings sought to he stricken are set out in the bill of exceptions, under the rulings of this court they cannot be considered.—Holley v. Coffee, 123 Ala. 406, 26 South. 239; Cottingham v. Greely-Barnham Gro. Co., 129 Ala. 200, 30 South. 560, 87 Am. St. Rep. 58; Harrison a. Alabama Midland Ry. Co., 144 Ala. 246, 40 South. 394; Etna Life Ins. Co. v. Lasseter, 153 Ala. 630, 45 South. 166, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 252; 3 Ency. Pl. & Pr. 400, 401. Consequently the cause must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Tyson, C. J., and Dowdell and Denson, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Hodges v. Wallace
Court Name: Supreme Court of Alabama
Date Published: Dec 17, 1908
Citation: 157 Ala. 453
Court Abbreviation: Ala.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.