Mobile & O.R. Co. v. Brassell

• Decision Date: 07 November 1914
• Docket Number: 98
• Citation: 188 Ala. 349,66 So. 447
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Parties: MOBILE & O.R. CO. v. BRASSELL.

66 So. 447

188 Ala. 349

MOBILE & O.R. CO. v. BRASSELL.

No. 98

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 7, 1914

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; W.W. Pearson, Judge.

Action by William R. Brassell against the Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company, to recover damages for maintaining a stagnant pool near plaintiff's house. From an order setting aside a verdict for plaintiff for one cent damages, defendant appeals. Reversed and rendered.

Steiner, Crum & Weil, of Montgomery, for appellant.

W.R. Brassell and W.H. & J.R. Thomas, all of Montgomery, for appellee.

ANDERSON, C.J.

Since the verdict in this case was for the plaintiff, the only ground upon which the motion for a new trial, at his instance, could have been granted was that the verdict was inadequate.

The jury saw and heard the witnesses, and it was peculiarly within their province to determine whether or not the plaintiff sustained any substantial damages as the proximate result of the wrong complained of, and which they found to exist. This being a case where the law provides a trial by jury, the trial court was invested with no right to set aside the verdict for either excessiveness or inadequacy alone, unless the amount allowed by the verdict was so excessive or inadequate as to plainly indicate that the verdict was produced "by passion or prejudice or improper motive." Montgomery Light & Traction Co. v. King, 65 So. 998; National Surety Co. v. Mabry, 139 Ala. 217, 35 So. 698; Moseley v. Jamision, 68 Miss. 336, 8 So. 745. While the jury in this case found that the defendant was liable for creating or maintaining a nuisance, the correctness of which finding we need not decide, they were of the opinion that the plaintiff sustained no substantial damages as the proximate result of same, and their verdict as to this last proposition was authorized by the evidence; and we are unable to say that the said finding was produced by passion, prejudice, or improper motive. Joyce on Nuisances, § 498; Wood on Nuisances, § 853.

The judgment of the trial court in granting the motion for a new trial is reversed; and one is here rendered overruling same.

Reversed and rendered.

McCLELLAN, MAYFIELD, and DE GRAFFENRIED, JJ., concur.