Schneider v. Southern Cotton Oil Co.
| Citation | 204 Ala. 614,87 So. 97 |
| Decision Date | 28 October 1920 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 13 |
| Parties | SCHNEIDER v. SOUTHERN COTTON OIL CO. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cullman County; O. Kyle, Judge.
Action by Fred Schneider against the Southern Cotton Oil Company. From judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
William E. James, of Cullman, for appellant.
A.A Griffith, of Cullman, for appellee.
Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, stated his cause of action in ten counts. Appellee demurred to each count severally and separately, assigning 64 grounds of demurrer. To the amended counts there were demurrers assigning as many and more grounds. If any ground was well taken against the counts, the ruling in each case was correct. The brief for appellant states some general propositions, making no specific application to the rulings assigned for error. We have not found that the rulings in the trial court, giving shape to the complaint finally submitted to the jury prejudiced any right of plaintiff, or offended against any law stated in the brief. Likewise in respect to the rulings on the sufficiency of the pleas; and, in any case, this court cannot be put in search of error not specifically assigned and argued in brief. Ala. S. & W. Co. v. Sells, 168 Ala. 547, 52 So. 921. The ruling here, therefore, is that no error has been shown in the matter of the pleadings in this cause.
This case in every essential respect was like unto the case shown in Crawford v. Union Cotton Oil Co., 202 Ala. 3, 79 So. 299, in which it was held by this court that damages as for permanent injury to realty, alleged to have been caused by the maintenance and operation of a cotton oil mill, were not recoverable, where the injury results, not as an effect of the permanent structure, but from the operations carried on therein, which are capable of modification or abandonment. The trial court instructed the jury according to the rule of that case, and this court is not now disposed to hold differently.
Evidence as to damages suffered was properly limited to the 12 months next before the commencement of the suit. Damages claimed were so limited by the complaint.
The court is of opinion that the complaint makes no claim for damages on account of the holloing or cursing of defendant's servants, and for that reason, if no other, evidence to prove such annoyances to plaintiff was properly excluded.
Our best judgment is that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howell v. City of Dothan
... ... caused by such destruction or inundation (Southern Ry ... Co. v. Slade, 192 Ala. 568, 68 So. 867). Otherwise ... stated, the measure of the damage ... trees along that watercourse was done or caused. Crawford ... v. Union Cotton Oil Co., 202 Ala. 3, 79 So. 299; ... Schneider v. Southern Cotton Oil Co., 204 Ala. 614, ... 87 ... ...
-
Pittman v. United Toll Systems, LLC
...284 Ala. 253, 224 So.2d 611 (1969); Pappas v. Alabama Power Company, 270 Ala. 472, 119 So.2d 899 (1960); Schneider v. Southern Cotton Oil Co., 204 Ala. 614, 87 So. 97 (1920)." Ex parte Riley, 464 So.2d 92, 94 (Ala.1985). Pittman does not contend before this Court that the summary judgment o......
-
Pappas v. Alabama Power Co.
...propositions and without specific application. Suits v. Glover, 260 Ala. 449, 71 So.2d 49, 43 A.L.R.2d 465; Schneider v. Southern Cotton Oil Co., 204 Ala. 614, 87 So. 97. Therefore, grounds of the motion other than the inadequacy of damages awarded will be considered waived. Grimes v. Jacks......
-
Ex parte Riley
...284 Ala. 253, 224 So.2d 611 (1969); Pappas v. Alabama Power Company, 270 Ala. 472, 119 So.2d 899 (1960); Schneider v. Southern Cotton Oil Co., 204 Ala. 614, 87 So. 97 (1920). This standard has been specifically applied to briefs containing general propositions devoid of delineation and supp......