Continental Gin Co. v. Eaton
| Decision Date | 21 January 1926 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 568 |
| Parties | CONTINENTAL GIN CO. v. EATON. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Certiorari to Jefferson Circuit Court; John Denson, Judge.
Petition of the Continental Gin Company for certiorari to the circuit court of Jefferson County to review the judgment there rendered in a proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Jordan Eaton against the petitioner, Writ granted reversed and rendered.
J.P Mudd, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Fred Fite, of Birmingham, for appellee.
The judge of the circuit denied appellee's petition for relief under the Workmen's Compensation Law, but afterwards, on appellee's motion for a new trial, set aside his finding and ordered a rehearing without more.
We see no reason which should induce this court to hold that the order in question is not the proper subject of review in this court under and in agreement with the general law on the subject of new trials. In compensation cases technical rules of procedure are laid aside as far as practicable; but that affords no reason why the trial court may not correct errors or why an error of the particular sort alleged in this case should not be corrected on appeal. This we construe to be the effect of the concluding clause of section 7578 of the Code of 1923, reserving to the appellate courts jurisdiction, in such cases, "to review questions of law by certiorari." Whether, on the showing made, appellee was justly due a rehearing is a question to be determined upon consideration of the record as in other cases.
Without going into the merits of the original controversy between the parties--which, it may well be, we correctly reflected in the judgment denying relief--we feel constrained to hold that the motion for a new trial in this case was erroneously granted. On the original hearing the trial judge found that appellee had sustained no injury in the accident of which he made proof. The motion for new trial alleged several grounds but the evidence adduced by appellee at the hearing of the motion went to the proposition only that appellee had sustained injury in manner and form as alleged by him. We conclude, therefore, that the motion was granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Under the general law parties are entitled to a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence only when they have shown diligence in an effort to prepare their cases with respect to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Humphrey v. Poss, 7 Div. 756.
... ... technical rules of procedure are to be disregarded as far as ... practicable. Continental Gin Co. v. Eaton, 214 Ala ... 224, 107 So. 209; Birmingham Belt R. Co. v ... Ellenburg, 215 Ala. 395, 111 So. 219; Schloss-Sheffield ... Steel & ... ...
-
Braswell v. Brooks
...observed that in cases of this character technical rules of procedure are to be disregarded as far as practicable. Continental Gin Co. v. Eaton, 214 Ala. 224, 107 So. 209; Birmingham Belt R. Co. v. Ellemburg, 215 Ala. 395, 111 So. 219; Schloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Watts, 236 Ala. 6......
-
Birmingham Clay Products Co. v. White
...for the writ of certiorari." Carothers v. McNabb, 216 Ala. 366, 113 So. 298, is to the same effect. While the statement in Continental Gin Co. v. Eaton, supra, seem to indicate that this court, in reviewing an order granting a new trial in a proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act, ......
-
Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Greer
... ... court as to verdicts rendered contrary to the evidence or the ... law." Cont. Gin Co. v. Eaton, 214 Ala. 224, 107 ... There ... were conflicting tendencies of the evidence presenting a jury ... question, as to the cause and manner ... ...