Black v. Black
Decision Date | 19 April 1985 |
Citation | 469 So.2d 1288 |
Parties | Lewis BLACK, Napoleon Black, Mattie Black and Black Family Farm, Inc. v. Alexander BLACK, et al. 84-72. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Carlos A. Williams of Chestnut, Sanders, Sanders & Turner, Selma, for appellants.
J. Milton Coxwell, Jr. of Coxwell and Coxwell, Monroeville, for appellees.
The plaintiffs appeal from a jury verdict in favor of the defendants in this action to recover damages for trespass in the cutting of timber on a twenty-acre tract of land in Monroe County. We affirm.
The heirs of Napoleon Black filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Monroe County, naming the heirs of Albert Black and Pedro Bell as defendants, alleging that the defendants negligently, or willfully, knowingly, and without consent, cut timber from their land in Monroe County. The defendants answered, alleging that they, with the exception of Pedro Bell, owned the land at the time of the alleged trespass, having acquired title by adverse possession. The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs appeal.
The plaintiffs urge this Court to reverse on the ground that the evidence produced at trial by the defendants in support of their claim of ownership was insufficient to support the jury's verdict.
The defendants insist that a post-trial motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) is necessary to preserve the right, on appeal, to attack the sufficiency of the evidence in a jury trial. They argue that the plaintiffs did not move for a JNOV following the trial, thus precluding this Court's review of that issue. We agree and, therefore, pretermit any further discussion of the facts in this case.
In Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Sealy, 374 So.2d 877, 880-82 (Ala.1979), the Court stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McInarnay v. Hall, 17-0086
...Koch , 12 F.3d 332, 340 (2d Cir. 1993) (quoting the 1991 Advisory Committee Note to amendment of Fed.R.Civ.P. 50 ).15 Black v. Black , 469 So.2d 1288, 1289 (Ala. 1985).16 Syllabus Point 2, State ex rel. Cooper v. Caperton , 196 W.Va. 208, 470 S.E.2d 162 (1996).17 Id. , 196 W.Va. at 216, 470......
-
Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Harris
...v. Jameson, 507 So.2d 504, 505 (Ala.1987); see also Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Sealy, 374 So.2d 877 (Ala.1979); Black v. Black, 469 So.2d 1288 (Ala.1985); Housing Auth. of the City of Prichard v. Malloy, 341 So.2d 708 (Ala.1977). "The motion for a directed verdict may be oral even ......
-
Hicks v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...507 So. 2d 504, 505 (Ala. 1987) ; see also Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Sealy, 374 So. 2d 877 (Ala. 1979) ; Black v. Black, 469 So. 2d 1288 (Ala. 1985) ; Housing Auth. of the City of Prichard v. Malloy, 341 So. 2d 708 (Ala. 1977)." Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Harris, 630 So. 2d 1018, 102......
-
Cody v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co.
...Cody cannot challenge the submission of these issues to the jury. Bains v. Jameson, 507 So.2d 504 (Ala.1987); Black v. Black, 469 So.2d 1288 (Ala.1985); Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Sealy, 374 So.2d 877 (Ala.1979); Housing Authority of the City of Prichard v. Malloy, 341 So.2d 708 (A......