History
  • No items yet
midpage
Dorrough v. MacKenson
157 So. 917
| Ala. Ct. App. | 1934
|
Check Treatment

The brief filed here on behalf of appellant, there being none filed for appellee, is constructed in total disregard of rules 10 and 12 of Supreme Court practice (pages 882 and 883, Code 1923, vol. 4).

While the disposition of the appellate courts of our state seems to be to condone this fault where it can be done without practically abrogating the said rules (Brothers v. Brothers, 208 Ala. 258, 94 So. 175; Griffin Burial Ass'n v. Snead, 25 Ala. App. 543, 149 So. 875), yet, so far as we are advised, the holding delineated by Mr. Justice Gardner for the Supreme Court in the opinion in the case of Ogburn-Griffin Grocery Co. v. Orient Insurance Co., 188 Ala. 218,66 So. 434, still stands for our guidance (Code 1923, § 7318).

This holding was set forth specifically and at length by us in the opinion in the case of Lester v. Enzor, 24 Ala. App. 318,134 So. 819. We will not again quote it here. *Page 637

Upon the authority of what we said in the Lester v. Enzor opinion (24 Ala. App. 318, 134 So. 819), the judgment here appealed from stands affirmed.

Affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Dorrough v. MacKenson
Court Name: Alabama Court of Appeals
Date Published: Jun 27, 1934
Citation: 157 So. 917
Docket Number: 6 Div. 563.
Court Abbreviation: Ala. Ct. App.
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.