Griffin v. Respress
| Decision Date | 01 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 239 |
| Parties | W. L. GRIFFIN v. Amon RESPRESS. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Tucker & Hildreth, Atmore, for appellant.
Brooks, Garrett & Thompson, Brewton, for appellee.
Mr. Respress sued Mr. Griffin claiming $2,625.00 for breach of an agreement between the parties, growing out of the following:
In early 1962 the two parties to this litigation decided to enter into a partnership agreement to buy, sell, breed, and raise beef cattle. At the time, Mr. griffin contributed some $3,600.00 and Mr. Respress put into the business 70 head of cattle. They are in agreement that this initial contribution was considered of equivalent value. The agreement was to share profits and losses equally.
The business continued until the latter part of 1962. At that time they agreed to split up, and at that time the partnership owed the following debts secured by notes:
Note for $6,500 owed to the Bank of Atmore
Note for $10,000 owed to the Bank of Atmore
Note for $5,000 owed to First National Bank of Atmore.
Further, at that time the partnership owned in the neighborhood of 400 cows.
Mr. Griffin agreed to assume the $6,500.00 note; Mr. Respress agreed to assume the $10,000.00 and the $5,000.00 notes. There is a dispute in the evidence as to the agreed distribution of the cattle. Mr. Griffin claims he got only 78 and that Mr. Respress got the rest of them.
The theory of Mr. Respress' case was that at the time the partnership was terminated that it had incurred substantial losses and that there were no profits; that the two of them got together and determined the amount of loss which Mr. Griffin should pay; that they arrived at a figure of $2,625.00 and that Mr. Griffin made a notation of this figure. He failed to pay his part of the loss as agreed and this suit was filed. Mr. Griffin on the other hand contended that the partnership had made a profit, not a loss, and that Mr. Respress owed him some $8,500.00. He filed a plea of set-off and recoupment in this amount.
The case was tried to a jury. The jury believed Mr. Respress' version and returned a verdict in his favor in the amount of $2,625.00. Mr. Griffin filed a motion for new trial which was denied. He brings this appeal here.
He has made some 25 assignments of error. The first 10 of these are based on the contention that the verdict is not supported by the evidence. There is no merit in these assignments. There was evidence in the case that the partnership had sustained losses and that Mr. Griffin had failed to participate in these losses to the extent sued for. The jury believed this evidence. We cannot reverse the case on this jury verdict even though we might have reached a different conclusion on the same evidence. Barber Pure Milk Co. v. Holmes, 264 Ala. 45, 84 So.2d 345; Mayben v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 273 Ala. 643, 144 So.2d 52, and Mercury Freight Lines, Inc. v. Pharo, 264 Ala. 322, 87 So.2d 642, and many other cases collated at k1002, Appeal and Error, Alabama Digest.
The assignments numbered 11 through 13 are based upon the court's failure to grant a new trial. There is no error in the court's failure to grant the new trial. The unwavering rule in this state is that where there is evidence, which if believed, justifies the verdict, a motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shepherd v. Southern Ry. Co.
...to justify the verdict rendered. Smith v. Smith, 254 Ala. 404, 48 So.2d 546; Suits v. Glover, 260 Ala. 449, 71 So.2d 49; Griffin v. Respress, 281 Ala. 168, 200 So.2d 469. Further, this being a Federal Employers' Liability Act case, judicial appraisal of the proofs to determine whether a jur......
-
Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Tisdale, 4 Div. 5
...its correctness, it is clear such verdict is erroneous and unjust. So. Ry. Co. v. Reeder, 281 Ala. 458, 204 So.2d 808; Griffin v. Respress, 281 Ala. 168, 200 So.2d 269. As to the issue of a conversion by appellants of appellee's 'rig,' we cannot hold the evidence insufficient to support the......
-
Roberson v. Ammons
...it is clear such verdict is erroneous and unjust. So. Ry. Co. v. Reeder, 281 Ala. 458, 204 So.2d 808 [1967]; Griffin v. Respress, 281 Ala. 168, 200 So.2d 469 [1967]. It is clear punitive damages may be awarded in an action for conversion, even though not alleged in the complaint, where the ......
-
Citizens Hospital Ass'n v. Schoulin
...justified the verdict, motion for new trial is properly overruled. Vernon v. Prine, 277 Ala. 402, 171 So.2d 110, and Griffin v. Respress, 281 Ala. 168, 200 So.2d 469. The evidence in the case at bar, although in material conflict, tends to show, if the jury wanted to believe it or infer fro......