Pool v. Hart, 132 So. 59 (Ala. 1931). · Go Syfert
Pool v. Hart, 132 So. 59 (Ala. 1931). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Pool
v.
Hart.
6 Div. 789..
Supreme Court of Alabama.
Jan 15, 1931.
132 So. 59
1931 Ala. LEXIS 370
Fort, Beddow Ray and G. Ernest Jones, all of Birmingham, for petitioner. Harsh Harsh, of Birmingham, opposed. In view of the decision, it is not necessary that briefs be here set out.
Sayre, Anderson, Thomas, Brown.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
SAYRE, J.

Of the numerous assignments of error on the record certified to the Court of Appeals that court gave specific statement and ruling to the questions presented by two of them only. That court denied a hearing as to the rest for the reason that appellant’s brief had not been prepared in accord with rules 10 and 12 of this court. This court, 'according to the rule of review adopted upon the creation of the Court of Appeals and followed consistently since, will not undertake to review questions not decided by that court. If petitioner, appellant, would, in a proper case, require the Court of Appeals to pronounce judgment on specific assignments of error which may have been properly presented to that court, thé remedy is not by certiorari.

In the opinion and judgment of the Court of Appeals passing upon two assignments of error, viz., that relating to the action of the trial court overruling petitioner’s demurrer to count 3 of the complaint, and the ruling denying error in a specified part of the trial court’s oral charge to the jury, we find no error. No more detailed discussion is necessary.

The writ applied for must need be denied. Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and BROWN, JJ., concur.