Summary
In Dugger v. Tayloe, 46 Ala. 320, Mr. Justice Saffold said: "The charge given by the court, on the effect of the evidence, does not appear to have been asked by either of the parties.
Summary of this case from Rowe v. StateOpinion
Submitted April 7, and April 11, 1887. Decided April 18, 1887.
No assignments of error being made in these cases, and there being no appearance for plaintiffs in error, the Court affirms the judgments below under Rule 21, § 4, 108 U.S. 585, for want of due prosecution of the writs of error.
No appearance for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. James T. Jones for defendants in error.
THE case is stated in the opinion of the court.
These are writs of error brought for the review of judgments of the Supreme Court of Alabama. No assignment of errors was returned with the writ in either of the cases, as required by § 997 of the Revised Statutes. No counsel has appeared for the plaintiffs in error, but the cases have both been submitted by the defendants in error on briefs, without any specification of errors by the plaintiffs, as required by Rule 21, § 2, 108 U.S. 585. We, therefore, affirm the judgment in each case, under § 4 of the same rule, 108 U.S. 585, for want of a due prosecution of the writ of error.
Affirmed.