Matthews v. Maynard
| Decision Date | 10 January 1963 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 833 |
| Citation | 148 So.2d 629,274 Ala. 330 |
| Parties | George Ross MATTHEWS v. Zelia H. MAYNARD. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Mead, Norman & Fitzpatrick, Birmingham, for appellant.
London, Yancey, Clark & Allen, Birmingham, for appellee.
Appeal by defendant from judgment rendered on jury verdict in favor of plaintiff in suit to recover personal injury and property damages growing out of an automobile collision in the City of Birmingham. Defendant's motion for a new trial was overruled.
There are three assignments of error. The only one argued and insisted on charges error in 'overruling appellant's motion for a new trial.' The only ground of the motion relied on is as follows:
While an assignment that the trial court erred in overruling a motion for a new trial has 'the effect of raising as a distinct assignment of error every ground stated in the motion for new trial except that the verdict was contrary to law' (Grimes v. Jackson, 263 Ala. 22, 82 So.2d 315; Chattachoochee Valley Railway Company v. Williams, 267 Ala. 464, 471, 103 So.2d 762), it is also the rule that the grounds of the motion relied on must sufficiently 'specify the precise error alleged to have occurred' (Grimes v. Jackson, supra). Inu other words, a ground of a motion for a new trial is to be considered the same as if it were a separate assignment of error.
We are unable to determine from ground 21 of the motion just what part of the trial court's oral charge is considered to be erroneous. An examination of the oral charge discloses an exception 'to that part of the court's charge where you where talking about the left turn statute. The court stated that part of the requirement of the statute in these words, 'when you are making your turn.'' An exception was also taken to the court's charge on subsequent negligence but, after a further statement by the court, that exception was withdrawn. There then followed a further discussion by the court and counsel for defendant with reference to a statute, apparently § 18, Tit. 36, Code 1940. At the end of this discussion, which covers over two pages of the record, the trial court asked if there were 'any additional exceptions to the remarks made by the court.' Defendant's counsel replied in the negative.
If an assignment of error is uncertain and indefinite as to the particular error complained of, this court will decline to consider it. The assignment should state concisely in what the error consists. Supreme Court Rule 1, 261 Ala. XX, Code 1940, Tit. 7, Pocketpart, Appendix; Beasley-Bennett Electric Company, Inc. v. Gulf Coast Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors Association et al., Ala., 134 So.2d 427, 430(7), and cases there cited; Micou v. Tallassee Bridge Co., 47 Ala. 652, 658. See also: Hornaday v. First Nat. Bank of Birmingham, 259 Ala. 26, 32, 65 So.2d 678; Kinnon v. Louisville & N. R. R. Co., 187 Ala. 480, 481-483, 65 So. 397.
Appellee also argues that the judgment should be affirmed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
General Finance Corp. v. Bradwell
...In other words, a ground of a motion for a new trial is to be considered the same as if it were a separate assignment. Matthews v. Maynard, 274 Ala. 330, 148 So.2d 629. A ground of a motion for new trial that the verdict was contrary to law is not sufficient to be treated as an assignment o......
-
Sanders v. Scarvey
...of our cases of Jones v. Americar, Inc., 283 Ala. 638, 219 So.2d 893; Bentley v. Lawson, 280 Ala. 220, 191 So.2d 372; Matthews v. Maynard, 274 Ala. 330, 148 So.2d 629; Jersey Insurance Co. v. Roddam, 256 Ala. 634, 56 So.2d The 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' portion of the oral charge is......
-
ABC Supermarket, Inc. v. American Emp. Ins. Co.
...bring up for review those matters so precisely set out in the motion. Grimes v. Jackson, 263 Ala. 22, 82 So.2d 315. Cf. Matthews v. Maynard, 274 Ala. 330, 148 So.2d 629. In Chattahoochee Valley Ry. Co. v. Williams, 267 Ala. 464, 103 So.2d 762, we said: 'Grounds of the motion not argued in b......
-
Alabama Power Co. v. Scholz
...part of the charge of which complaint is made. Turner v. Mobile Infirmary Association, 277 Ala. 15, 166 So.2d 851; Matthews v. Maynard, 274 Ala. 330, 148 So.2d 629, and authorities there cited. As shown above, counsel for appellants at the conclusion of the court's oral charge stated: 'I ha......