
    Decatur Land Co. v. City of New Decatur.
    
      Street Assessment.
    
    (Decided November 27, 1913.
    63 South. 1024.)
    
      Appeal and Error; Review; Presentation of Error. — -Where there was no bill of exceptions, and the motion to dismiss the appeal from the action of the city council with respect of street improvement assessments was not enrolled by order of the court so as to make it a part of the record proper, such dismissal cannot be reviewed-on appeal.
    Heard before Hon. Thomas W. Wert.
    Appeal from Morgan Law and Equity Court.
    Prom an assessment for street improvement by the city of New Decatur against the Decatur Land Company, the Decatur Land Company took an appeal to the Law and Equity Court. In that court an order was entered dismissing the appeal, and the Land Company appeals to this court.
    Affirmed.
    
      Eyster & Eyster, for appellant.
    Counsel discuss the errors assigned with the insistence that the levy was not properly made and that the contention of the Land company should he sustained, and they cite authority in support of their contention, but in view of the opinion, it is not deemed necessary to here set them out.
    Tidwell & Sample, for appellee.
    The court cannot review the action of the trial court in dismissing the ap; peal for the reason that the order of dismissal was not enrolled so as to be made a part of the record, and such order is not presented by bill of exceptions.- — Craig v. Etheridge, 133 Ala. 284; Ewing v. Wofford, 122 Ala. 439; Ex parte Highland L. Co., 105 Ala. 221.
   McCLELLAN, J.

— The single assignment of error is that the trial court erred in sustaining the appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal of the appellant, taken to the Morgan law and equity court from the action of the city council in respect of street improvement assessments. There is no bill of exceptions. There is, in consequence, no exception to the court’s action. The motion to dismiss the appeal was not enrolled by order of the court. Without a bill of exceptions, the motion not being enrolled, this court cannot revieAV the action of the court , below in sustaining the motion to dismiss the appeal to that court.- — Craig v. Etheredge, 133 Ala. 284, 32 South. 65; Ewing v. Wofford, 122 Ala. 439, 25 South. 251; Barton v. Gas Engine Co., 154 Ala. 275, 45 South. 213.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Dowdell, C. J., and Sayre and Somerville, JJ., concur.  