Mobile & O. R. R. Co. v. Cox

• Decision Date: 01 April 1929
• Docket Number: 27718
• Citation: 121 So. 292,153 Miss. 597
• Parties: MOBILE & O. R. R. CO. v. COX.*
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

121 So. 292

153 Miss. 597

MOBILE & O. R. R. CO. v. COX.*

No. 27718

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 1, 1929

Division B

1 TRIAL.Fact finding is province which belongs to jury, to be exercised according to everyday experience and common observation.

Fact finding, which includes all material inferences and deductions which may be reasonably and logically drawn from relevant direct facts, is province which belongs to jury, to be exercised by them according to everyday experience and common observation of the twelve men constituting jury.

2.APPEAL AND ERROR.Trial court's action in giving peremptory instruction is reviewable.

Trial court's action in giving peremptory instruction is reviewable.

3.TRIAL.Where, under all evidence, reasonable and logical inferences could be drawn, which in their ultimate application would exculpate defendant from legal responsibility, court improperly gave peremptory instruction for plaintiff.

Where under all the evidence, reasonable and logical inferences or deductions could be drawn, which in their ultimate application would exculpate defendant from all legal responsibility, court improperly gave peremptory instruction for plaintiff.

HON. J I. STURDIVANT, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Noxubee county, HON. J. I. STURDIVANT, Judge.

Action by B. F. Cox against the Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company.From the judgment, defendant appeals.Reversed and remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

A. J. McIntyre and L. L. Martin, for appellant.

Dorroh & Strong, for appellee.

OPINION

GRIFFITH, J.

A peremptory instruction was granted in this case for appellee, although under all the evidence at least three reasonable and logical inferences or deductions may be drawn which in their ultimate application would exculpate the appellant from all legal responsibility.It is not for a trial judge in a court of law, nor for us here, to say that such inferences and deductions, if and when drawn, do not comport with what under the evidence the judge would find on that evidence.Fact finding, which includes all material inferences and deductions which may be reasonably and logically drawn from the relevant direct facts, is a province which belongs to the jury, to be exercised by them according to the everyday experience and common observation of the twelve men constituting the jury--not of and by any one man, be he judge or juror.

It is true that if clearly and...