Mullins v. Lemley

Decision Date21 April 1921
Docket Number8 Div. 338
Citation88 So. 831,205 Ala. 593
PartiesMULLINS v. LEMLEY.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; Robt. C. Brickell, Judge.

Action by G.C. Lemley against T.K. Mullins for damages to a horse and buggy in an automobile collision. Judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under section 6, p. 449, Acts 1911. Affirmed.

Lanier & Pride, of Huntsville, for appellant.

Robt. E. Smith, of Huntsville, for appellee.

McCLELLAN J.

The plaintiff (appellee) was awarded a judgment against defendant (appellant) for $70 as damages resulting from a collision, on a public highway, between defendant's automobile and plaintiff's horse and buggy. The first count of the complaint was not subject to the original or additional grounds of demurrer interposed thereto. It was not necessary to aver in the count that plaintiff was driving his horse on this occasion, or to name, in the count, the person or persons driving the horse. Damages to property negligently or wrongfully injured by another on a public highway may be recovered regardless of the person in charge of the damaged property at the time; though, of course, contributory fault on the part of the person in control of it may defeat the right to recover in proper cases.

The judgment entry recites:

"Issue being joined on the plea of the general issue by consent, with leave to offer in evidence any matter or thing that if specially pleaded would constitute a good defense."

The defendant (appellant) testified, in substance, that the horse ran or jumped into his then standing automobile, and that the damage thus done to the automobile was $80. One tendency or effect of this evidence was to refute the plaintiff's theory of negligent (simple) driving of the car by the defendant. After the court had concluded the oral instruction to the jury, counsel for defendant called the court's attention "to the defendant's right to recover," evidently on the idea that defendant had interjected by his evidence a right in the nature of recoupment or set-off. The declination of a trial court to instruct the jury in consonance with, or on the subject of verbal suggestion by counsel presents no matter for review on appeal, even though the suggestion was well founded. McPherson's Case, 198 Ala. 5, 7, 73 So. 387, stating the exclusive method prevailing in this state.

Special charge "No. A," refused to ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Roan v. Smith
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • September 21, 1961
    ...as error. It is well established that under such circumstances, there is nothing presented to this court for review. Mullins v. Lemley, 205 Ala. 593, 88 So. 831; McPherson v. State, 198 Ala. 5, 73 So. 387; Tranholm v. State, 38 Ala.App. 57, 77 So.2d In the case of Mullins v. Lemley, supra [......
  • Bradford v. Buttram
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • April 21, 1921
  • Kemp v. Jackson
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • September 20, 1962
    ...of, verbal suggestion by counsel presents no matter for review on appeal, even though the suggestion was well founded. Mullins v. Lemley, 205 Ala. 593, 88 So. 831. See also: Brock v. State, 235 Ala. 304, 178 So. 548; Krasner v. Gurley, 248 Ala. 686, 29 So.2d 224; Keel v. Weinman, 266 Ala. 6......
  • Bush v. Stanton
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • July 26, 1962
    ...charge was put in writing as the statute provides. Jacobson v. State, 55 Ala. 151; Green v. State, 66 Ala. 40. See also: Mullins v. Lemley, 205 Ala. 593, 88 So. 831; Krasner v. Gurley, 248 Ala. 686, 29 So.2d 224; Keel v. Weinman, 266 Ala. 684, 98 So.2d 611; § 273, Title 7, Code 1940. If the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT