Empire Coal Co. v. Goodhue
| Decision Date | 10 May 1917 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 474 |
| Parties | EMPIRE COAL CO. v. GOODHUE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 7, 1917
Appeal from City Court of Birmingham; John C. Pugh, Judge.
Action by Lucy E. Goodhue, as administratrix of her deceased husband, against the Empire Coal Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Percy Benners & Burr, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Harsh Harsh & Harsh, of Birmingham, for appellee.
The mere omission in the judgment entry to name the foreman of the jury which renders the verdict does not render the verdict or the judgment void, if otherwise valid. The judgment here affirmatively shows that it was based on the verdict of a jury of 12. Counsel are in error in supposing that the record must affirmatively show a valid verdict. A verdict may be oral, and yet afford proper basis for the judgment entered thereon; and this even in criminal cases. It is true that the record proper must show that the case was tried by a lawful jury of 12, or a legal excuse, consent, or waiver of such jury trial, if a jury trial is requisite, and must show the verdict of such lawful jury to support the judgment; but all this is done in this case, the only irregularity being a failure to show the name of one of the jurors, which is not at all necessary, though proper and usual.
There was no error in allowing the witness Hambrick to testify that he worked for the defendant. This, it appears, was merely introductory of the subjects and questions upon which witness was to testify. There was no attempt to impeach the witness nor to corroborate or to contradict his testimony.
The trial court in its oral charge fell into error in instructing the jury that under the sixth count both compensatory and punitive damages might be recovered; but on exception being taken and the attention of the court called to it, the error was corrected. There were other counts which would authorize the recovery of compensatory damages, and no exception was reserved to that particular part of the oral charge which would have warranted the jury in finding compensatory damages under count 6. The exception was very general as to that part of the charge relating to the measure of damages. Some parts of the charge as to the measure of damages was correct though not as full and explicit as it might have been. It seems to have been conceded by counsel for both the plaintiff and the defendant that the charge as to compensatory damages was not as clear or as full as it might be, and counsel for plaintiff stated to the court wherein he thought the charge was lacking in clearness. The court approved the statement of counsel, and so remarked to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunt v. State
... ... defendant. The Court of Appeals held that such refusal was ... without error. Whereas in Empire Coal Co. v. Goodhue, 200 ... Ala. 265, 76 So. 31, this Court held that it was not error to ... ...
-
Mobile & O.R. Co. v. Williams
... ... check the numbers and seals of each of the seven box cars, ... and numbers on the three coal cars in the "cut" in ... question, and that to do so he must examine the seals on both ... sides ... Birmingham, R. L. & P. Co. v. Littleton, 201 Ala ... 141 (4), 77 So. 565; Empire Coal Co. v. Goodhue, 200 ... Ala. 265, 76 So. 31 ... We ... cannot agree that thereby ... ...
-
Southern Ry. Co. v. Jarvis
...the error by instructing the jury to disregard the voluntary answer. Fortson v. Hester, 252 Ala. 143, 39 So.2d 649; Empire Coal Co. v. Goodhue, 200 Ala. 265, 76 So. 31; Alabama Power Co. v. Edwards, 219 Ala. 162, 121 So. 543. We feel that the effect of the voluntary statement upon the jury ......
-
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Vickery
...228 Ala. 133, 152 So. 455; Hunt v. State, 248 Ala. 217, 27 So.2d 186; Stokley v. State, 254 Ala. 534, 49 So.2d 284; Empire Coal Co. v. Goodhure, 200 Ala. 265, 76 So. 31. 'This man,' referred to in the question, was not properly identified in the question and if objection on that ground had ......