From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Piatt v. Hilty

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Oct 27, 1925
106 So. 67 (Ala. Crim. App. 1925)

Opinion

6 Div. 696.

August 4, 1925. Rehearing Denied October 27, 1925.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; John Denson, Judge.

Action for damages by Mena A. Hilty against D. A. Piatt and M. A. Piatt. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

R. J. McClure, of Birmingham, for appellants.

Counsel discuss questions on the merits of the case, but in view of the decision it is not necessary that brief be here set out.

Black Harris, of Birmingham, for appellee.

Where errors are jointly assigned by appellants, to be available to any injury must be shown to all. Sloss Co. v. Taylor, 16 Ala. App. 241, 77 So. 79; Birmingham Finance Co. v. Barber, 19 Ala. App. 609, 99 So. 736.


The judgment is against two defendants; both appeal. There is a joint assignment of error. The assignment claims error in that the trial court refused to give the general charge as requested in writing as to one defendant. This could not have injured the defendant who was not entitled to affirmative instructions. As presented, we cannot consider the assignment. Birmingham Finance Co. v. Barber, 19 Ala. App. 609, 99 So. 736; S. S. S. I. Co. v. Taylor, 16 Ala. App. 241, 77 So. 79; 13 Mich. Dig. 134, par. 721 (1).

The foregoing being the only error argued in brief, and there being no error apparent on the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Piatt v. Hilty

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Oct 27, 1925
106 So. 67 (Ala. Crim. App. 1925)
Case details for

Piatt v. Hilty

Case Details

Full title:PIATT et al. v. HILTY

Court:Court of Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Oct 27, 1925

Citations

106 So. 67 (Ala. Crim. App. 1925)
21 Ala. App. 127

Citing Cases

Interstate Electric Co. et al. v. Daniel

The appeal is joint, and any error to be available to one must be available to all. Piatt v. Hilty, 21 Ala.…