
    (108 So. 515)
    
    COCHRAN v. HENARD.
    (1 Div. 410.)
    (Supreme Court of Alabama.
    April 22, 1926.
    Rehearing Denied May 20, 1926.)
    Appeal and error <&wkey;67l(3, 5) — Objection that defendant’s mortgage was not recorded till after plaintiff bought mortgaged car cannot be reviewed by Supreme Court, where mortgage was not set out in bill of exceptions, and bill did not contain entire evidence.
    In action in detinue, objection that defendant’s mortgage showed on face that it was not recorded till after plaintiff bought mortgaged car cannot be reviewed by Supreme Court, where mortgage, though admitted in evidence, was not set out in bill of exceptions, and bih of exceptions did not contain all the evidence.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; J. W. Goldsby, Judge. .....
    ^3^3For other cases see'same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    
      Action by S. H. Cochran against Henry Henard. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Code 1923, § 7326.
    Affirmed.
    J. G. Bowen, of Mobile, for appellant.
    Counsel argues for error in the judgment, but without citing authorities.
    George B. Cleveland, of Mobile, for appellee.
    Where the hill of exceptions does not contain all the evidence, the court will not pass on rulings on admission of evidence. Hutto v. Stough, 157 Ala. 566, 47 So. 1031; Allen v. Draper, 98 Ala. 590, 13 So. 529; Baker v. Patterson, 171 Ala. 88, 55 So. 135.
   SAXRE, J.

Statutory action of detinue by appellant for one Ford automobile.

The record shows only one exception reserved on the trial, viz., plaintiff excepted to the ruling hy which the court admitted in evidence the mortgage under which defendant claimed ownership of the automobile in controversy. This mortgage is not set out in the bill of exceptions, but it was admitted in evidence, as the bill discloses. Objection was made on the ground that the mortgage showed on its face that it had not been recorded until after plaintiff bought the automobile from defendant’s mortgagor. The bill of exceptions fails to recite that it contains all the evidence, and evidently it does not. Aside from the mortgage, the record shows that there was evidence other than that contained -in the bill of exceptions. In this state of the record this court cannot review the objection taken in the trial court against defendant’s mortgage title. Some of the cases to this effect are cited in Baker v. Patterson, 171 Ala. 88, 55 So. 135.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. J., and GARDNER and MIDLER, JJ„ concur.  