Lindsay Products Corp. v. Alabama Securities Corp.
| Decision Date | 25 April 1946 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 263. |
| Citation | 25 So.2d 852,247 Ala. 662 |
| Parties | LINDSAY PRODUCTS CORPORATION v. ALABAMA SECURITIES CORPORATION. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Lawrence Dumas, Jr., of Birmingham, for appellant.
Solomon & Berkowitz, of Birmingham, for appellee.
The appeal is from an order or judgment of the trial court vacating and setting aside a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff and granting to defendant a new trial in a suit for breach of contract.
That the verdict was contrary to the evidence, and contrary to the great preponderance and weight of the evidence were among the grounds of the motion for a new trial.
Where the trial court's ruling in granting a new trial is based on no specific ground, his judgment must be sustained on appeal if any good ground is presented. W. M. Templeton & Son et al. v. David, 233 Ala. 616, 173 So. 231. And this Court must consider whether it is to be sustained on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence. Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630, 9 So. 738; Cook v. Sheffield Co., 206 Ala. 625, 91 So. 473; Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Hamilton, 135 Ala. 343, 33 So. 157; Birmingham Railway, Light & Power Co. v. Willis, 143 Ala 220, 38 So. 1016; W. M. Templeton & Son et al. v. David supra.
In considering this ground of a motion for a new trial it must now be considered the fully established rule, under a long line of our cases, that decisions granting new trials will not be reversed, unless the evidence plainly and palpably supports the verdict set aside. Cobb v. Malone, supra; Proctor v. Coffey, 227 Ala. 318, 319, 149 So. 838; Ex parte Landers, 214 Ala. 20, 106 So. 225; Goad v. Harris, 207 Ala. 357, 92 So. 546. By this is meant that, 'the same presumption must be indulged in favor of granting the motion that would be indulged had the motion been overruled.' Ex parte Landers, supra; Conner v. Central of Georgia R. Co., 221 Ala. 358, 128 So. 789; W. M. Templeton & Son et al. v. David, supra; 15 Ala.Dig., New Trial k72, pp. 392, 393.
In the form the ruling comes to us in the instant case, we must sustain it as if the trial court intended to sustain the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, or to the great weight of the evidence.
After a careful consideration of the evidence, we cannot say that the great weight of the evidence supports the verdict and that the trial court's action in setting it aside was clearly and palpably...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mullinax v. Hufham
...he did so intend.' 233 Ala. 616, 617, 618, 173 So. 231. See also Webb v. Gay, 241 Ala. 336, 2 So.2d 775; Lindsay Products Corp. v. Alabama Securities Corp., 247 Ala. 662, 25 So.2d 852; Cox v. Martin, 250 Ala. 401, 34 So.2d 463; Martin v. Birmingham Southern R. Co., 250 Ala. 583, 35 So.2d 33......
-
Camp v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
... ... Alabama, [251 Ala. 189] that it is the duty of the trial ... 438, 162 So. 95; ... Lindsay Products Corp. v. Alabama Securities Corp., ... ...
-
McMurphy v. Pipkin
...American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. v. Louisville and N. R. Co., 250 Ala. 354, 361, 34 So.2d 474; Lindsay Products Corporation v. Alabama Securities Corporation, 247 Ala. 662, 663, 25 So.2d 852. The complaint alleges that 'the plaintiff was walking in a southerly direction on the paved sidewal......
-
Jawad v. Granade
...This holding was reaffirmed in Ex parte Landers, 214 Ala. 20, 106 So. 225 (1925), and later in Lindsay Products Corp. v. Alabama Securities Corp., 247 Ala. 662, 25 So.2d 852 (1946). This Court reinforced the Cobb standard in King v. Scott, 217 Ala. 511, 116 So. 681 (1928), by holding that w......