Opinion · Supreme Court of Alabama

De Bardeleben Coal Co. v. Cox

200 Ala. 553

Type: Opinion
Court: Supreme Court of Alabama
Jurisdiction: Alabama
Date: 1917-11-15
Topic: general

MAYFIELD, J. Petitioner insists that we should award the writ of certiorari and reverse the judgment of the 'Court of Appeals, solely on the ground that the Court of Appeals put the trial court in error for refusing three charges, which are set out in the petition and in brief. We are not informed of the nature or character of the suit in the trial court, nor what the issues were, nor what the evidence was, and without such information it is impossible for us to know which was right in the rulings as to the giving or refusing of the charges in question. We do not feel called upon to go and search for the record in the Court of Appeals in order to know the nature' of the suit, the issues on which the trial was had, and whether or not the issues were proven. Some of these facts must be known, before it is possible %r us to know whether the stated charges should have been given or have been refused.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed De Bardeleben Coal Co. v. Cox. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

MAYFIELD, J.

Petitioner insists that we should award the writ of certiorari and reverse the judgment of the 'Court of Appeals, solely on the ground that the Court of Appeals put the trial court in error for refusing three charges, which are set out in the petition and in brief.

We are not informed of the nature or character of the suit in the trial court, nor what the issues were, nor what the evidence was, and without such information it is impossible for us to know which was right in the rulings as to the giving or refusing of the charges in question. We do not feel called upon to go and search for the record in the Court of Appeals in order to know the nature' of the suit, the issues on which the trial was had, and whether or not the issues were proven. Some of these facts must be known, before it is possible %r us to know whether the stated charges should have been given or have been refused.

Application denied.

ANDERSON, O. J., ’ and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.