
    Southern States Lumber Co. v. Green.
    
      Assumpsit.
    
    (Decided Feb. 14, 1907.
    43 So. Rep. 102.)
    
      Appeal; Record; Reservation of Ewecptions. — Where it is not shown by the bill of exceptions that an exception was reserved to the action of the trial court in setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial, such action cannot be reviewed on appeal.
    Appeal from Baldwin Circuit Court.
    Heard before Hon, Samuel B. Brown.
    Action by John M. Green against the Southern States Lumber Company. From a judgment granting motion of plaintiff to set aside verdict for defendant, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    James H. Webb, for appellant.
    The judgment entry is not sufficient to show a judgment of the court setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial. — Wright v. The State, 103 Ala. 95; Randall v. Worthington, 141 Ala. 497; Jasper Merc. Go. v. O’Rear, 112 Ala. 247; Barnemann v. Morrison & Woodward, 132 Ala. 638; Marx v. The State, 131 Ala. 44; Bell, el. al. v. Otts, 101 Ala. 186; Chamberlain v. Mobile Fish & Oyster Go., 137 Ala. 187; Wallace v. GrosUoait, 139 Ala. 259.
    
      L. H. & E. W. Faith, for appellee.
    The bill of exceptions does not shoAAr that an exception was reserved to the ruling of the court in granting a motion for a new trial and the deficiencies in the bill cannot he supplied by reference to the record. — Code, section 433; Milner v. Wiggins, 38 South. 1010; Logan v. Adams, 135 Ala. 475; McCain v>. Street, 136 Ala. 625; Williams v. Woodward Iron Co., 106 Ala. 254; Hood v. Pioneer Co., 95 Ala. 461.
   SIMPSON, J.

On the first trial of this case a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, which was set aside on motion by the circuit court, and on appeal this court held that such action was correct. — Green v. Southern States Lumber Co., 141 Ala. 681, 37 South. 670. On the second trial, a verdict was rendered in favor of the defendant, which on motion of the plaintiff was set aside, and this appeal is from the judgment of the court in granting said motion.

The bill of exceptions does not show that any exception was reserved to the action of the court in granting the motion to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial, and, as we cannot resort to the record for information which should be contained in the bill of exceptions, we cannot review the action of the court in that matter. — Williams v. Woodward Iron Co., 106 Ala. 254, 256, 17 South. 517. There being no assignment of error on the record, the judgment of the court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Tyson, C. J., and Haralson and Denson, JJ., concur.  