From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Watson v. Vest

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Oct 26, 1926
110 So. 58 (Ala. Crim. App. 1926)

Opinion

8 Div. 492.

October 26, 1926.

Appeal from Morgan County Court; W. T. Lowe, Judge.

Action in assumpsit by Dick Vest against T. M. Watson. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

J. N. Powell, of Albany, for appellant.

In view of the decision; it is not necessary that brief be here set out.

Sample Kilpatrick, of Hartsells, for appellee.

Brief for appellant does not comply with Supreme Court rule 10, and the judgment should be affirmed.


The appellant has failed to comply with Supreme Court rules 10 and 12 relating to the filing of briefs on appeal.

The rules applicable to the filing of briefs on appeal are simple and easy to understand and to comply with, and they were designed to aid the courts and to facilitate disposition of cases. Where the requirements of rules 10 and 12 are ignored by appellants, this court will not consider the questions noted in the assignments of error. This court is in entire accord with the opinion in Ogburn-Griffin Gro. Co. v. Orient Ins. Co., 188 Ala. 218-223, 66 So. 434. Upon authority of that case and others of similar import, the judgment in this case is affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Watson v. Vest

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Oct 26, 1926
110 So. 58 (Ala. Crim. App. 1926)
Case details for

Watson v. Vest

Case Details

Full title:WATSON v. VEST

Court:Court of Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Oct 26, 1926

Citations

110 So. 58 (Ala. Crim. App. 1926)
21 Ala. App. 561

Citing Cases

PAIR v. RICE

Smith v. Heineman, 118 Ala. 195, 24 So. 364, 72 Am. St. Rep. 150; Swisher v. Dunn, 89 Kan. 412, 131 P. 571,…

Linde Air Products Co. v. Grace

On the record of appeal there are noted 19 assignments of error. As was said by Samford, J., in the case of…