From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Inge v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama
Jan 20, 1938
178 So. 454 (Ala. 1938)

Opinion

2 Div. 110.

January 20, 1938.

A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and John J. Haynes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Herbert Herbert, of Demopolis, for the State.


The rules of law declared in Ex parte Grimmett, 228 Ala. 1, 152 So. 263, are supported by sound reasons and unimpeachable authority. The responsibility of applying the law as there declared rests upon courts upon which the law confers jurisdiction to apply the law to the facts of the particular case.

The Court of Appeals has exercised that authority without stating the evidence in extenso, by holding that the evidence admitted on the trial was not sufficient to justify a submission of the case to the jury, and, under the well-settled rules of review by certiorari, the writ is due to be denied. Postal Tel.-Cable Co. v. Minderhout, 195 Ala. 420, 71 So. 91. It is so ordered.

Writ denied.

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


Summaries of

Inge v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama
Jan 20, 1938
178 So. 454 (Ala. 1938)
Case details for

Inge v. State

Case Details

Full title:INGE v. STATE

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Jan 20, 1938

Citations

178 So. 454 (Ala. 1938)
235 Ala. 280

Citing Cases

Williams v. State

In Ex parte Grimmett, 228 Ala. 1, 152 So. 263, it is said: "The general rule, to which there are some…

Inge v. State

Reversed and remanded. Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Inge v. State, 235 Ala. 280, 178 So. 454.…