Life & Casualty Ins. Co. of Tennessee v. Womack
| Decision Date | 01 December 1933 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 553. |
| Citation | 228 Ala. 70,151 So. 880 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Parties | LIFE & CASUALTY INS. CO. OF TENNESSEE v WOMACK. |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 1934.
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
Proceeding on petition of the Life & Casualty Insurance Company of Tennessee for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in Life & Casualty Ins. Co. v. J. B. Womack, 151 So 881, and on motion of respondent to strike certain matter from the petition.
Motion granted; writ denied.
Moreau P. Estes, of Nashville, Tenn., for petitioner.
Fred S Parnell, of Florence, opposed.
In this cause the respondent moves to strike from the petition for certiorari some ten pages purporting to set out the evidence presented on the trial of the cause in the court below.
That the Court of Appeals is an appellate court, and that a review of its decisions by certiorari in this court is limited to questions of law, which may include misapplication of the law to the facts as found by that court from the record before it, has been too firmly established to call for further discussion or citation of cases. This court looks to the opinion of the Court of Appeals alone for findings of fact. It follows that recitals of the evidence found in the record in that court have no place in a petition for certiorari to this court. The motion of respondent to strike these pages from the petition is granted.
Assignment of error No. 1, considered by the Court of Appeals, and presented in the petition for certiorari, reads: "There is no evidence to support the verdict and judgment of the Lower Court."
Appellate courts review only questions reserved on the trial, and reverse the lower court only for errors of the court to the prejudice of appellant. The assignment above quoted alleges no error in the trial court. As well known, our statute forbids the trial court giving the jury any charge on the effect of the evidence except upon request in writing. The assignment does not allege error for failure to give any such charge, nor for failure to grant a motion for new trial.
Petitioner in argument, seems to contend that, when there is no evidence to support a verdict, it is the duty of appellate courts to so declare, and that a failure to reverse or vacate such a judgment is a denial of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. Such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Ass'n for Advancement of Colored People v. State
...Co. v. McDonald, 264 Ala. 295, 87 So.2d 539; Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. McDaniel, 262 Ala. 227, 78 So.2d 290; Life & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Womack, 228 Ala. 70, 151 So. 880; Kinnon v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 187 Ala. 480, 65 So. 397; Freeman v. Blount, 172 Ala. 655, 55 So. Since som......
-
State v. Sax, 34891
...v. State, 147 Okl. 14, 294 P. 149; cf. State ex rel. Sime v. Pennebaker,215 Minn. 75, 9 N.W.2d 257. In Life & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Womack, 228 Ala. 70, 71, 151 So. 880, 881, the court stated: '* * * Due process of law is provided when the party is given full opportunity to present the quest......
-
Pike v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 6 Div. 470
...is not due process of law.' [Emphasis supplied.] The cases of Wise v. Miller, 215 Ala. 660, 111 So. 913; Life & Casualty Ins. Co. of Tennessee v. Womack, 228 Ala. 70, 151 So. 880; Byars v. Town of Boaz, 229 Ala. 22, 155 So. 383; Ridge v. State ex rel. Tate, 206 Ala. 349, 89 So. 742, are all......
-
Morris v. Yancey
...v. Jackson, 264 Ala. 339, 87 So.2d 623; Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. McDaniel, 262 Ala. 227, 78 So.2d 290; Life & Casualty Ins. Co. of Tennessee v. Womack, 228 Ala. 70, 151 So. 880. Assignment of error 30 is concerned with a question which was not answered by the witness. There is, therefo......