Bank of Tallassee v. Elmore Fertilizer Co., 5 Div. 270
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | BRICKEN, J. |
| Citation | 78 So. 648,16 Ala.App. 465 |
| Parties | BANK OF TALLASSEE v. ELMORE FERTILIZER CO. |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 270 |
| Decision Date | 16 April 1918 |
78 So. 648
16 Ala.App. 465
BANK OF TALLASSEE
v.
ELMORE FERTILIZER CO.
5 Div. 270
Court of Appeals of Alabama
April 16, 1918
Appeal from Circuit Court, Elmore County; Gaston Gunter, Judge.
Action by the Elmore Fertilizer Company against the Bank of Tallassee. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded. [78 So. 649]
Smoot & Mullins, of Wetumpka, and Rushton, Williams & Crenshaw, of Montgomery, for appellant.
Holley & Morrow and Frank W. Lull, all of Wetumpka, for appellee.
BRICKEN, J.
There are several assignments of error, but all relate to the sole question presented for review, which is the action of the trial court in setting aside the verdict of the jury, and granting a new trial.
On appeals of this character, the action of the lower court can only be reviewed by a bill of exceptions, and not upon the record proper, as the action of the court on motion for a new trial is no part of the record proper. Acts 1915, p. 722; Kreamer v. Jackson [16 Ala.App. 466] Lumber Co., 179 Ala. 225, 60 So. 88; Milner Coal & Iron Co. v. Wiggins, 143 Ala. 132, 38 So. 1010.
The motion for new trial was made by appellee (plaintiff below), and was based upon several separate and distinct grounds. However, the bill of exceptions recites that "the court granted the motion to set aside the verdict, on the theory that the verdict was a quotient verdict." This recital clearly shows, and the appellee by brief practically admits, that the ground upon which the court set aside the verdict of the jury and granted a new trial was that the verdict of the jury was a quotient verdict. It therefore follows that the material question for us to consider is whether or not the evidence, to this end, offered upon the motion, is sufficient to sustain the contention that the verdict was in fact a quotient verdict in contemplation of law. A quotient verdict has been held to be a verdict which has not been arrived at in a legitimate way, as in a case where "if a jury should agree in advance that their verdict should be the result of a quotient of a division by twelve of the sum total of all the jurors' separate assessment, this would constitute a quotient verdict, and when brought about by such an agreement ought to be set aside." Birmingham Ry. Lt. & P. Co. v. Moore, 148 Ala. 115, 130, 42 So. 1024, 1029, and cases cited. "If the jurors previously agree to a particular mode of arriving at a verdict, and to abide by the contingent result...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sanders v. State, 6 Div. 61
...abide by the result. Birmingham R., Light & Power Co. v. Moore, 148 Ala. 115, 42 So. 1024; Bank of Tallassee v. Elmore Fertilizer Co., 16 Ala.App. 465, 78 So. 648; Henderson Land & Lumber Co. v. Brown, 16 Ala.App. 453, 78 So. 716. The question here presented is whether, under the rules we h......
-
Storie v. State, 8 Div. 383
...abide by the result. Birmingham R., Light & Power Co. v. Moore, 148 Ala. 115, 42 So. 1024; Bank of Tallassee v. Elmore Fertilizer Co., 16 Ala.App. 465, 78 So. 648; Henderson Land & Lumber Co. v. Brown, 16 Ala.App. 453, 78 So. 716." (Emphasis supplied) To this end, if there is no such prior ......
-
Honigsberg v. New York City Transit Authority
...in that the jury in advance agreed upon a method, and agreed to be bound by the result. Bank of Tallassee v. Elmore Fertilizer Co., 16 Ala.App. 465, 78 So. 648, 649 . And, the failure to elicit such evidence or evidence tending to show agreement by jurors to abide by result of any calculati......
-
Mangino v. Todd, 8 Div. 123.
...Act of 1915, p. 722. Birmingham Waterworks Co. v. Justice, supra; Powell v. Folmar, supra; Bank of Tallassee v. Elmore Fertilizer Co., 16 Ala. App. 465, 78 So. 648; Patterson v. Holt, 16 Ala. App. 439, 78 So. 637; Benton v. State, 16 Ala. App. 192, 76 So. 476; Stover v. State, 204 Ala. 311,......
-
Sanders v. State, 6 Div. 61
...abide by the result. Birmingham R., Light & Power Co. v. Moore, 148 Ala. 115, 42 So. 1024; Bank of Tallassee v. Elmore Fertilizer Co., 16 Ala.App. 465, 78 So. 648; Henderson Land & Lumber Co. v. Brown, 16 Ala.App. 453, 78 So. 716. The question here presented is whether, under the rules we h......
-
Storie v. State, 8 Div. 383
...abide by the result. Birmingham R., Light & Power Co. v. Moore, 148 Ala. 115, 42 So. 1024; Bank of Tallassee v. Elmore Fertilizer Co., 16 Ala.App. 465, 78 So. 648; Henderson Land & Lumber Co. v. Brown, 16 Ala.App. 453, 78 So. 716." (Emphasis supplied) To this end, if there is no such prior ......
-
Honigsberg v. New York City Transit Authority
...in that the jury in advance agreed upon a method, and agreed to be bound by the result. Bank of Tallassee v. Elmore Fertilizer Co., 16 Ala.App. 465, 78 So. 648, 649 . And, the failure to elicit such evidence or evidence tending to show agreement by jurors to abide by result of any calculati......
-
Mangino v. Todd, 8 Div. 123.
...Act of 1915, p. 722. Birmingham Waterworks Co. v. Justice, supra; Powell v. Folmar, supra; Bank of Tallassee v. Elmore Fertilizer Co., 16 Ala. App. 465, 78 So. 648; Patterson v. Holt, 16 Ala. App. 439, 78 So. 637; Benton v. State, 16 Ala. App. 192, 76 So. 476; Stover v. State, 204 Ala. 311,......