Opinion
6 Div. 139.
June 10, 1943.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Walker County; R. L. Blanton, Judge.
Suit in equity by the State, on the relation of Still Hunter, as Solicitor of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, against Maggie Mullinax and another for an injunction against operation of a liquor nuisance and place of assignation. Decree for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Beddow, Ray Jones, of Birmingham, for appellants.
Assignments of error, that the court erred in rendering the decree, are sufficient, in that the error complained of goes to the entire decree, the contention being there was no sufficient evidence to justify the decree. Carney v. Kiser Co., 200 Ala. 527, 76 So. 853; Kinnon v. Louisville N. R. Co., 187 Ala. 480, 65 So. 397; Burgin v. Sugg, 210 Ala. 142, 97 So. 216. In cases of this kind, the court below is presumed to consider nothing but legal testimony, and on appeal the Supreme Court will consider only such testimony. It is therefore, not necessary that objections to rulings on evidence be argued or that assignments of error be predicated on such rulings.
Wm. N. McQueen, Acting Atty. Gen., and Geo. C. Hawkins, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
It is necessary that errors be assigned to present rulings for review. Sup.Ct. Rule 1; Hymes v. State, 209 Ala. 91, 95 So. 383; Sanson v. Sanson, 212 Ala. 585, 103 So. 863; Halle v. Brooks, 209 Ala. 486, 96 So. 341; Brahan v. Collins, Minor 169; Mitchell v. David, 25 Ala. App. 560, 150 So. 563.
General assignments that the court erred in rendering the decree are not sufficient in this case where there could be no one error affecting the whole decree. Dickens v. Dickens, 174 Ala. 345, 56 So. 809. In equity cases, where witnesses are examined ore tenus the conclusion of the trial court is like unto the verdict of a jury. Jackson v. Jackson, 204 Ala. 257, 89 So. 482; Bowling v. State, 204 Ala. 405, 85 So. 500; McSwean v. McSwean, 204 Ala. 663, 86 So. 646.
This appeal is from a final decree of the Circuit Court of Walker County, sitting in equity, enjoining and restraining the defendants, appellants here, from operating their place, described in the bill as a liquor nuisance, and as a place of assignation, as alleged in the bill, and as defined, respectively by Title 29, § 145, and Title 7, § 1092 of the Code 1940.
The case was submitted on testimony ore tenus, and is voluminous and conflicting, covering a written record of over three hundred pages. The question presented is of fact.
We have made a painstaking examination of the testimony of the numerous witnesses, and we find legal and competent testimony which if believed supports the conclusions pronounced in the decree. The trial judge who saw and heard the witnesses was in better position to judge of their credibility than we are. Jackson v. Jackson, 204 Ala. 257, 85 So. 482.
Under the statute and repeated rulings here, we are authorized to refrain from detailed analysis of the testimony, as no good purpose can be served thereby. Code 1940, T. 13, § 66; Beasley v. Ross, 234 Ala. 335, 174 So. 764.
The assignments of error do not invoke any specific rulings on objections to testimony, nor were exceptions filed thereto as required by the prevailing rule of practice in equity cases. Sumner et al. v. Caldwell et al., ante, p. 149, 12 So.2d 391.
We are of opinion, therefore, that the decree should be affirmed. It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
GARDNER, C. J., and THOMAS and LIVINGSTON, JJ., concur.