33 So. 2d 371 | Ala. Ct. App. | 1947
It is our opinion that in considering this appeal we are confronted with an inadequate or improper assignment of errors.
The suing out of an appeal is analogous to the institution of a new suit. The assignment of errors takes the place of the declaration or bill. The office of assignments of error is to inform the appellate court and the appellee of the precise errors relied on. Kinnon v. Louisville N. R. Co.,
In the hurry of perfecting an appeal it is the usual practice of lawyers to assign as error all matters that might be even faintly meritorious. Upon further study while preparing his brief he may conclude that, in his anxiety to fully cover all possible errors in his assignments, he has included some that are untenable. These he is free to abandon simply by not carrying them forward in his brief and argument, for as a corollary to the rule that errors not assigned will not be considered on appeal is the proposition that assignments not specified in the brief are considered as abandoned.
The complaint in this cause contained three counts. Each count alleged that "the plaintiff, being then about the age of twelve years, went upon the premises of the Defendant as an invitee, express or implied," and while playing with the son of the defendant was injured by the falling of a brick chimney, etc.
Demurrers were filed to the counts separately. Among the grounds assigned separately to counts 1 and 2 were that the averment in each count that the plaintiff was an invitee, express or implied, is but a conclusion of the pleader and states no cause of action, and among the grounds of demurrer to count 3 was that this count "is but a conclusion of the pleader and states no cause of action against this defendant." *303
This ground assigned to count 3 was general, and not sufficiently specific to put the trial court in error for overruling the demurrer to count 3 on the ground above set out. Suell v. Derricott,
It is fundamental that on appeal in civil cases we are limited in our review powers to those errors which are brought before us by proper assignment of errors. Regardless of whether the complaint in this cause was vulnerable, the scope and effect of the forms of the assignment of errors must necessary determine our reviewable field.
Appellant's assignment of error number 1 is as follows: "The court erred in overruling the demurrers to each count of complaint and each ground of said demurrers. R. pp. 5 and 6."
Under this joint assignment the defendant can take nothing, the demurrer not going to all counts separately and severally, unless each count is subject to the demurrer interposed. Supreme Court Rule No. 1, Code 1940, Tit. 7, Appendix; Alabama Chemical Co. v. Hall,
Assignment of error No. 2 is as follows: "2. The court erred in refusing to give charges numbered 1, 2, 4, 6, 11. R. pp. 10 and 11."
In Southern Railway Co. v. Nowlin,
Without intimating that any of the charges enumerated in assignment No. 2, supra, should have been given, we are clear to the conclusion that some of them were palpably bad and properly refused. The appellant can therefore take nothing from assignment of error No. 2.
The remaining assignments of error, i. e. Nos. 3, 4, and 5, are as follows:
"3. The Court erred in overruling the defendant's objections to the testimony of Malvyn Jones, Sr. R. pp. 18, 19, 21.
"4. The Court erred in overruling the defendant's objections to the testimony of Malvyn Jones, Jr. R. p. 25.
"5. The Court erred in overruling defendant's objections to the testimony of I. C. Wheelis, R. pp. 31, 32."
In Hall v. Pearce,
"Assignment of error No. 3 reads as follows:
" 'In the several rulings on the admissions and exclusions and nonadmissions and nonexclusions of the evidence shown, Tr. pages 12 to 16, inclusive.'
"This does not comply with rule 1 (p. 1506, Code 1907) of Supreme Court. This assignment of error does not state concisely in what the error consists. It should do so. Errors assigned in this way will not be considered by this court. Supreme *304 Court Rule 1; Woodruff v. Smith, 127 Ala. [65], 77, 28 So. 736 [54 L.R.A. 440]."
All of the above principles and cases we think necessitate an affirmance of this case.
Affirmed.