without any presumption in Alabama

1927Counsel for appellant take us to task for overlooking or disregarding section 9498 of the Code providing that: “Either party to a civil cause tried by the court without the intervention of a jury may present for review by bill of exceptions-the conclusions and judgment of the court on the evidence and the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court shall review the same without any presumption in favor of the court below. * * * ” We refer counsel to the case of Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403 , 72 So. 52 , and to Halle v. Brooks, 209 Ala. 486 , 96 So. 341 , wherein the application of the statute is restri

1927Counsel for appellant take us to task for overlooking or disregarding section 9498 of the Code providing that: “Either party to a civil cause tried by the court without the intervention of a jury may present for review by bill of exceptions-the conclusions and judgment of the court on the evidence and the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court shall review the same without any presumption in favor of the court below. * * * ” We refer counsel to the case of Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403 , 72 So. 52 , and to Halle v. Brooks, 209 Ala. 486 , 96 So. 341 , wherein the application of the statute is restri

1941Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403 , 72 So. 52 ; Ross v. State, 15 Ala.App. 187 , 72 So. 759 , certiorari denied Ex parte Ross, 198 Ala. 694 , 73 So. 1001 ; Jaye v. State, 23 Ala.App. 391 , 127 So. 244 , certiorari denied 220 Ala. 618 , 127 So. 245 .

1941Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403 , 72 So. 52 ; Ross v. State, 15 Ala.App. 187 , 72 So. 759 , certiorari denied Ex parte Ross, 198 Ala. 694 , 73 So. 1001 ; Jaye v. State, 23 Ala.App. 391 , 127 So. 244 , certiorari denied 220 Ala. 618 , 127 So. 245 .

1921Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403 , 72 South. 52 ; Thompson v. Collier, 170 Ala. 469 , 54 South. 493 .

1915That in the trial of any cause without a jury in said court in addition to the question which may be under existing laws presented to the Supreme Court for review, either party may by bill of exceptions also present for review the conclusions and judgments of the court on the evidence, and the Supreme Court shall review the same without any presumption in favor of the court below on the evidence, and, if there be an error, shall render such judgment in the cause as the court below should have rendered or reverse and remand the same for further proceedings as to the Supreme Court shall be deeme

1904We have often held in construing this section as contained in many acts relating to inferior courts, that where the record failed to show that there was an exception reserved to the conclusion and judgment of the court below on the evidence, this court by the terms of the statute, is without jurisdiction or authority to review the correctness of the conclusion of the judge upon the evi dence. — Denson v. Gray, 113 Ala. 608 ; Ala. Winery Co. v Garner, 119 Ala. 70 ; Murray v. Monk, in MS.

1898Williams v. Woodward Iron Co., 106 Ala. 254 ; Denson v. Gray, 113 Ala. 608 .

1995State Health Planning Agency v. Mobile Infirmary Ass'n, 608 So.2d 1372 (Ala.Civ.App. 1992).

1970We are governed by the same rules in our review as was the circuit court, so we will review the order of the Commission as though the appeal from the Commission’s order had been taken directly and primarily to this court. — Alabama Public Service Commission v. Nunis, 252 Ala. 30 , 39 So.2d 409 ; Alabama Public Service Commission v. Higginbotham, 256 Ala. 621 , 56 So.2d 401 ; Alabama Public Service Commission v. Decatur Transfer & Storage, Inc., 257 Ala. 346 , 58 So.2d 887 ; Alabama Public Service Commission v. Redwing Carriers, Inc., 279 Ala. 659 , 189 So.2d 342 .

1970We are governed by the same rules in our review as was the circuit court, so we will review the order of the Commission as though the appeal from the Commission’s order had been taken directly and primarily to this court. — Alabama Public Service Commission v. Nunis, 252 Ala. 30 , 39 So.2d 409 ; Alabama Public Service Commission v. Higginbotham, 256 Ala. 621 , 56 So.2d 401 ; Alabama Public Service Commission v. Decatur Transfer & Storage, Inc., 257 Ala. 346 , 58 So.2d 887 ; Alabama Public Service Commission v. Redwing Carriers, Inc., 279 Ala. 659 , 189 So.2d 342 .

1970We are governed by the same rules in our review as was the circuit court, so we will review the order of the Commission as though the appeal from the Commission’s order had been taken directly and primarily to this court. — Alabama Public Service Commission v. Nunis, 252 Ala. 30 , 39 So.2d 409 ; Alabama Public Service Commission v. Higginbotham, 256 Ala. 621 , 56 So.2d 401 ; Alabama Public Service Commission v. Decatur Transfer & Storage, Inc., 257 Ala. 346 , 58 So.2d 887 ; Alabama Public Service Commission v. Redwing Carriers, Inc., 279 Ala. 659 , 189 So.2d 342 .

1970We are governed by the same rules in our review as was the circuit court, so we will review the order of the Commission as though the appeal from the Commission’s order had been taken directly and primarily to this court. — Alabama Public Service Commission v. Nunis, 252 Ala. 30 , 39 So.2d 409 ; Alabama Public Service Commission v. Higginbotham, 256 Ala. 621 , 56 So.2d 401 ; Alabama Public Service Commission v. Decatur Transfer & Storage, Inc., 257 Ala. 346 , 58 So.2d 887 ; Alabama Public Service Commission v. Redwing Carriers, Inc., 279 Ala. 659 , 189 So.2d 342 .

1970We are governed by the same rules in our review as was the circuit court, so we will review the order of the Commission as though the appeal from the Commission’s order had been taken directly and primarily to this court. — Alabama Public Service Commission v. Nunis, 252 Ala. 30 , 39 So.2d 409 ; Alabama Public Service Commission v. Higginbotham, 256 Ala. 621 , 56 So.2d 401 ; Alabama Public Service Commission v. Decatur Transfer & Storage, Inc., 257 Ala. 346 , 58 So.2d 887 ; Alabama Public Service Commission v. Redwing Carriers, Inc., 279 Ala. 659 , 189 So.2d 342 .

1970We are governed by the same rules in our review as was the circuit court, so we will review the order of the Commission as though the appeal from the Commission’s order had been taken directly and primarily to this court. — Alabama Public Service Commission v. Nunis, 252 Ala. 30 , 39 So.2d 409 ; Alabama Public Service Commission v. Higginbotham, 256 Ala. 621 , 56 So.2d 401 ; Alabama Public Service Commission v. Decatur Transfer & Storage, Inc., 257 Ala. 346 , 58 So.2d 887 ; Alabama Public Service Commission v. Redwing Carriers, Inc., 279 Ala. 659 , 189 So.2d 342 .

1970We are governed by the same rules in our review as was the circuit court, so we will review the order of the Commission as though the appeal from the Commission’s order had been taken directly and primarily to this court. — Alabama Public Service Commission v. Nunis, 252 Ala. 30 , 39 So.2d 409 ; Alabama Public Service Commission v. Higginbotham, 256 Ala. 621 , 56 So.2d 401 ; Alabama Public Service Commission v. Decatur Transfer & Storage, Inc., 257 Ala. 346 , 58 So.2d 887 ; Alabama Public Service Commission v. Redwing Carriers, Inc., 279 Ala. 659 , 189 So.2d 342 .

1970We are governed by the same rules in our review as was the circuit court, so we will review the order of the Commission as though the appeal from the Commission’s order had been taken directly and primarily to this court. — Alabama Public Service Commission v. Nunis, 252 Ala. 30 , 39 So.2d 409 ; Alabama Public Service Commission v. Higginbotham, 256 Ala. 621 , 56 So.2d 401 ; Alabama Public Service Commission v. Decatur Transfer & Storage, Inc., 257 Ala. 346 , 58 So.2d 887 ; Alabama Public Service Commission v. Redwing Carriers, Inc., 279 Ala. 659 , 189 So.2d 342 .

1952We need not again cite those cases.- In Rountree Farm Co. v. Morgan County, 249 Ala. 472 , 31 So.2d 346 , the Court applied in a condemnation case (like other cases), where there was a jury trial in the circuit court, the rule that the conclusion reached by the trier of the facts under such circumstances was entitled to great weight, and affirmed the finding by the jury which was sustained by evidence so given.

1952We need not again cite those cases.- In Rountree Farm Co. v. Morgan County, 249 Ala. 472 , 31 So.2d 346 , the Court applied in a condemnation case (like other cases), where there was a jury trial in the circuit court, the rule that the conclusion reached by the trier of the facts under such circumstances was entitled to great weight, and affirmed the finding by the jury which was sustained by evidence so given.

1941Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403 , 72 So. 52 ; Ross v. State, 15 Ala.App. 187 , 72 So. 759 , certiorari denied Ex parte Ross, 198 Ala. 694 , 73 So. 1001 ; Jaye v. State, 23 Ala.App. 391 , 127 So. 244 , certiorari denied 220 Ala. 618 , 127 So. 245 .

1941Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403 , 72 So. 52 ; Ross v. State, 15 Ala.App. 187 , 72 So. 759 , certiorari denied Ex parte Ross, 198 Ala. 694 , 73 So. 1001 ; Jaye v. State, 23 Ala.App. 391 , 127 So. 244 , certiorari denied 220 Ala. 618 , 127 So. 245 .

1941Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403 , 72 So. 52 ; Ross v. State, 15 Ala.App. 187 , 72 So. 759 , certiorari denied Ex parte Ross, 198 Ala. 694 , 73 So. 1001 ; Jaye v. State, 23 Ala.App. 391 , 127 So. 244 , certiorari denied 220 Ala. 618 , 127 So. 245 .

1941Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403 , 72 So. 52 ; Ross v. State, 15 Ala.App. 187 , 72 So. 759 , certiorari denied Ex parte Ross, 198 Ala. 694 , 73 So. 1001 ; Jaye v. State, 23 Ala.App. 391 , 127 So. 244 , certiorari denied 220 Ala. 618 , 127 So. 245 .

1941Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403 , 72 So. 52 ; Ross v. State, 15 Ala.App. 187 , 72 So. 759 , certiorari denied Ex parte Ross, 198 Ala. 694 , 73 So. 1001 ; Jaye v. State, 23 Ala.App. 391 , 127 So. 244 , certiorari denied 220 Ala. 618 , 127 So. 245 .

1941Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403 , 72 So. 52 ; Ross v. State, 15 Ala.App. 187 , 72 So. 759 , certiorari denied Ex parte Ross, 198 Ala. 694 , 73 So. 1001 ; Jaye v. State, 23 Ala.App. 391 , 127 So. 244 , certiorari denied 220 Ala. 618 , 127 So. 245 .

1927Counsel for appellant take us to task for overlooking or disregarding section 9498 of the Code providing that: “Either party to a civil cause tried by the court without the intervention of a jury may present for review by bill of exceptions-the conclusions and judgment of the court on the evidence and the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court shall review the same without any presumption in favor of the court below. * * * ” We refer counsel to the case of Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403 , 72 So. 52 , and to Halle v. Brooks, 209 Ala. 486 , 96 So. 341 , wherein the application of the statute is restri

1927Counsel for appellant take us to task for overlooking or disregarding section 9498 of the Code providing that: “Either party to a civil cause tried by the court without the intervention of a jury may present for review by bill of exceptions-the conclusions and judgment of the court on the evidence and the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court shall review the same without any presumption in favor of the court below. * * * ” We refer counsel to the case of Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403 , 72 So. 52 , and to Halle v. Brooks, 209 Ala. 486 , 96 So. 341 , wherein the application of the statute is restri

1917This holding has been followed by both this court, and the Supreme Court in subsequent cases.— Finney v. Studebaker Corporation, 196 Ala. 422 , 72 South. 54 ; Ross v. State, infra, 72 South. 759 ; Mulligan v. State, infra, 72 South. 761 .

1917This holding has been followed by both this court, and the Supreme Court in subsequent cases.— Finney v. Studebaker Corporation, 196 Ala. 422 , 72 South. 54 ; Ross v. State, infra, 72 South. 759 ; Mulligan v. State, infra, 72 South. 761 .

1917This holding has been followed by both this court, and the Supreme Court in subsequent cases. — Finney v. Studebaker Corporation , 196 Ala. 422 , 72 So. 54 ; Ross v. State, infra , 72 So. 759 ; Mulligan v. State, infra , 72 So. 761 .

1917This holding has been followed by both this court, and the Supreme Court in subsequent cases.— Finney v. Studebaker Corporation, 196 Ala. 422 , 72 South. 54 ; Ross v. State, infra, 72 South. 759 ; Mulligan v. State, infra, 72 South. 761 .

1915That in the trial of any cause without a jury in said court in addition to the question which may be under existing laws presented to the Supreme Court for review, either party may by bill of exceptions also present for review the conclusions and judgments of the court on the evidence, and the Supreme Court shall review the same without any presumption in favor of the court below on the evidence, and, if there be an error, shall render such judgment in the cause as the court below should have rendered or reverse and remand the same for further proceedings as to the Supreme Court shall be deeme

1915That in the trial of any cause without a jury in said court in addition to the question which may be under existing laws presented to the Supreme Court for review, either party may by bill of exceptions also present for review the conclusions and judgments of the court on the evidence, and the Supreme Court shall review the same without any presumption in favor of the court below on the evidence, and, if there be an error, shall render such judgment in the cause as the court below should have rendered or reverse and remand the same for further proceedings as to the Supreme Court shall be deeme

1906Under Acts 1896-97, p. 330, § 12, declaring the powers, etc., of the city court of Anniston, it is especially provided that, as to the conclusions and judgment of said court on the evidence, “the Supreme Court shall review the same without any presumption in favor of the court below on the evidence,” etc. As this provision is made applicable to all cases at law tried in said court without a. jury, it applies to criminal as well as to civil cases.— Maxwell v. State, 140 Ala. 131, 134 , 37 South. 266 ; Holmes v. State (Ala.) 39 South. 569 .

1904We have often held in construing this section as contained in many acts relating to inferior courts, that where the record failed to show that there was an exception reserved to the conclusion and judgment of the court below on the evidence, this court by the terms of the statute, is without jurisdiction or authority to review the correctness of the conclusion of the judge upon the evi dence. — Denson v. Gray, 113 Ala. 608 ; Ala. Winery Co. v Garner, 119 Ala. 70 ; Murray v. Monk, in MS.

1898Williams v. Woodward Iron Co., 106 Ala. 254 ; Denson v. Gray, 113 Ala. 608 .