Opinion
6 Div. 21
March 22, 1927.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Roger Snyder, Judge.
Action on promissory note by W. J. Worthington against E. J. Robinson. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
In his opening statement to the jury counsel for plaintiff stated, in substance, that the suit had been brought originally in the municipal court, and that the judge thereof had rendered a judgment for the plaintiff.
Thereupon the court remarked:
"You are fixing for me to have to dismiss this jury. That is not proper evidence, and I will state to the jury that it is improper to state anything about the result of any other trial. He can state that the other trial was had, but it is not proper to put its result before you."
Plaintiff's counsel further stated to the jury:
"As I said, gentlemen, the only thing for you to pass on in this case is whether or not, when he signed these three notes, did he receive the $100 from Worthington."
Whereupon the court remarked:
"Mr. Edwards, I am not going to let you argue the case now."
W. T. Edwards, of Birmingham, for appellant.
The remarks of the trial court were calculated to prejudice plaintiff's case and should have been excluded. 38 Cyc. 1316. A contract infected with usury is not void in toto, but the principal sum is collectable. Code 1923, § 8567; Miller v. Graham, 196 Ala. 230, 72 So. 87; Munter v. Linn, 61 Ala. 497.
Barber Barber, of Birmingham, for appellee.
The admonitions of the trial court were proper. Phillips v. Beene, 16 Ala. 720. The case is governed by the Local Act of 1901, Terry's Local Laws 1917, 593. Rice v. Garnett, 17 Ala. App. 239, 84 So. 557.
Unsuccessful suit by appellant against appellee on a promissory note, with waiver of exemptions as to personal property.
A mere restatement of the assignment of error relied upon is not such an argument and insistence upon same as will cause this court to give it consideration. An appellant cannot expect his assignments of error to be considered, except in so far as he at least undertakes to point out the grounds upon which he claims that there was error in the rulings of which he complains. Gen. Accident, Fire Life Ins. Co. v. Shields, 9 Ala. App. 214, 62 So. 400.
Applying the above rule, there is not much to be said in this opinion.
We find nothing improper in the remarks of the court to the counsel for plaintiff, while said counsel was making his opening statement to the jury.
Appellant's contention for error on this appeal in the rulings on evidence and charges by the court, to the effect that the note sued upon was void, if infected with usury of a certain kind or extent, is answered adversely to him by the provisions of the Local Law approved March 9, 1901, found in Terry's Local Laws of Jefferson County (1917) at page 593.
What we have said above, it seems to us, is really more than the argument set forth by appellant calls for. However, we may say that we have examined all the assignments argued even cursorily, and in none of the rulings underlying same do we find prejudicial error. There being no error in the record proper, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.