Duncan v. Sherrill
| Decision Date | 21 January 1977 |
| Citation | 341 So.2d 946 |
| Parties | Walter C. DUNCAN et al. v. Nell SHERRILL. SC 2026. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Sherman B. Powell, Decatur, for appellants.
Merrill W. Doss, of Doss & Sparkman, Hartselle, for appellee.
This is a boundary line dispute between coterminous landowners. The trial court fixed the boundary after hearing evidence from an assortment of witnesses, examining various documents and surveys, and viewing the property. The Duncans, neighbors of Sherrill, appealed.
The record is replete with evidence which supports the line as fixed by the trial court. As we have so often said, a decree fixing a boundary line between coterminous lands on evidence submitted ore tenus and viewed by the trial court has the effect of a jury verdict and will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly or palpably contrary to the weight of the evidence. Casey v. Keeney, 290 Ala. 94, 274 So.2d 68 (1973); Jones v. Wise, 282 Ala. 707, 213 So.2d 914 (1968).
On appeal, the Duncans recognize this well-established principle of law and focus most of their argument on the trial court's failure to grant their motion for new trial wherein they sought a new trial before another judge, because of the asserted prejudice of the judge who tried this case.
In support of their motion for new trial, the Duncans filed an affidavit made by the attorney who represented them in which he said that, after the case was tried and during a meeting in chambers with counsel for both sides present, the trial judge disclosed to the lawyers that the plaintiff, Mrs. Sherill had been his daughter's first grade teacher and had done a good job, for which he and his wife were appreciative. This meeting took place sometime after the evidence in the case had been taken but before the judge viewed the property and some several weeks before the judge entered the judgment in this case. No objection was made to the judge continuing to a conclusion of the controversy until the Duncans filed their motion for new trial, which the trial judge denied after going on record to state that he had met Mrs. Sherrill two or three times, that he also knew the Duncans, and that the fact that Mrs. Sherrill had taught his daughter did not influence him in anyway in deciding the case.
We affirm. There is absolutely no evidence in the record before us to suggest that the trial court was biased or prejudiced toward either party to this litigation. In fact, just the opposite appears. The only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...(Ala. 1986). Prejudice on the part of a judge is not presumed. Hartman v. Board of Trustees, 436 So.2d 837 (Ala.1983); Duncan v. Sherrill, 341 So.2d 946 (Ala. 1977); Ex parte Rives, 511 So.2d 514, 517 (Ala.Civ.App.1986). "`[T]he law will not suppose a possibility of bias or favor in a judge......
-
Hodges v. State
...(Ala. 1986). Prejudice on the part of a judge is not presumed. Hartman v. Board of Trustees, 436 So.2d 837 (Ala.1983); Duncan v. Sherrill, 341 So.2d 946 (Ala. 1977); Ex parte Rives, 511 So.2d 514, 517 (Ala.Civ.App.1986). `"[T]he law will not suppose a possibility of bias or favor in a judge......
-
Griffin v. State
...fact that one of the parties before the court is known to and thought well of by the judge is not sufficient to show bias. Duncan v. Sherrill, 341 So.2d 946 (Ala.1977). Neither is the fact that the judge had previously sentenced the defendant's partner in crime to the maximum sentence and b......
-
Woodward v. State
...that one of the parties before the court is known to and thought well of by the judge is not sufficient to show bias. Duncan v. Sherrill, 341 So. 2d 946 (Ala. 1977). Neither is the fact that the judge had previously sentenced the defendant's partner in crime to the maximum sentence and bemo......
-
Caroline A. Placey, of Judicial Bypass Procedures, Moral Recusal, and Protected Political Speech: Throwing Pregnant Minors Under the Campaign Bus
...served as precedent for any later decision. 148 Anonymous, 803 So. 2d at 555 (See, J., concurring specially) (quoting Duncan v. Sherrill, 341 So. 2d 946, 947 (Ala. 1977)). 149 See id. (upholding the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and denying the minor's petition). 150 See, e.g., Lip......