Robertson Banking Co. v. Ebersole
| Decision Date | 16 April 1976 |
| Citation | 331 So.2d 278 |
| Parties | ROBERTSON BANKING CO., a Banking Corporation, et al. v. Ladean EBERSOLE. SC 1446. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
W. W. Dinning, Demopolis, for appellants.
No brief for appellee.
This appeal is from a judgment granting the defendant's motion for new trial.
The plaintiff bank and Mrs. McClusky, as executrix under the will of Mrs. Fannie Settoon, brought an action for declaratory judgment seeking a determination of ownership of funds in the bank in the name of Mrs. Fannie DeSear Settoon, deceased. Mrs. Settoon, during her lifetime, had placed money in a savings account in the bank in the name of Mrs. Ebersole, her niece. Mrs. Settoon retained the passbook. Thereafter, Mrs. Settoon had her name added to the account and, even later, had Mrs. Ebersole's name removed from the account. Mrs. Settoon at all times retained the passbook; and it was in her possession at the time of her death.
The bank and executrix asked for a determination of ownership of these funds, i.e., whether Mrs. Ebersole was entitled to them by way of an inter vivos gift, or whether the funds were a part of the estate.
The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the executrix. It should be noted, however, that the form of the verdict was 'We, the jury, find the issues in favor of the Plaintiff, Joyce McClusky, in the amount of '$ Full Amount.'
Mrs. Ebersole filed a motion for new trial raising some six grounds, among them, that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence; and that the verdict was defective in that the jury did not state the amount of the verdict in favor of the executrix.
The trial court heard arguments of counsel on the motion for new trial, but took no evidence; hence Title 7, § 764(B), requiring the evidence on motion for new trials to be reduced to writing by the court reporter, has no application, contrary to the contentions of the appellants here.
We have repeatedly said that when a trial court grants a motion for new trial and does not specify what ground such judgment is based on, its ruling must be sustained on appeal if the motion contains any good ground. Johnson v. Hodge, 291 Ala. 142, 279 So.2d 123 (1973); Shepherd v. Southern Ry. Co., 288 Ala. 50, 256 So.2d 883 (1970); City of Tuscaloosa v. Townsend,274 Ala. 268, 147 So.2d 824 (1962).
It has also been said many times that granting or refusing a motion for new trial rests largely in the discretion of the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shiloh Const. Co., Inc. v. Mercury Const. Corp.
...in granting a new trial when the great weight of the evidence plainly and palpably supports the jury verdict. See, Robertson Banking Co. v. Ebersole, 331 So.2d 278 (Ala.1976); Morgan County v. Hart, 260 Ala. 418, 71 So.2d 278 (1954); Merkle v. Armstrong, 342 So.2d 788 (Ala.Civ.App.1976). Wh......
-
Jawad v. Granade
...dissent to the contrary, the Cobb standard continued to be the applicable rule of law in these situations. In Robertson Banking Co. v. Ebersole, 331 So.2d 278 (Ala.1976), this Court upheld the granting of a new trial although it found that there was "abundant evidence to support the jury ve......
-
Lowery v. City of Abbeville
...abuse of some legal right or plain and palpable error by the trial court will merit reversal of such a decision. Robertson Banking Co. v. Ebersole, 331 So.2d 278 (Ala.1976). In Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Evans, 288 Ala. 25, 256 So.2d 861 (1972), the court noted: The refusal of the tri......
-
Trans-South-Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Wein, TRANS-SOUTH-RENT-A-CA
...unless some legal right was abused and the record plainly and palpably shows that the trial court was in error. Robertson Banking Co. v. Ebersole, 331 So.2d 278 (Ala.1976). Appellant, TSRAC, is correct in its assertion that its evidence, if believed by the jury, showed fraud. But the facts ......