Sorrell v. Lindsey

CourtAlabama Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtLAWSON, Justice.
CitationSorrell v. Lindsey, 247 Ala. 630, 25 So.2d 725 (Ala. 1946)
Decision Date18 April 1946
Docket Number1 Div. 255.
PartiesSORRELL v. LINDSEY et al.

Beebe & Hall, of Bay Minette, for appellant.

J B. Blackburn, of Bay Minette, for appellees.

LAWSON Justice.

The appellant, plaintiff below, brought suit against appellees defendants below, to recover damages for personal injuries.

There were verdict and judgment for defendants. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the verdict and grant new trial. This motion was overruled by the trial court.

The only assignment of error on this appeal is the refusal of the trial court to set aside the verdict of the jury and to grant the plaintiff a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. Therefore, the only question to be here decided is whether or not, after allowing all reasonable presumptions of the correctness of the verdict, the preponderance of the evidence against the verdict is so decided as to clearly convince us that it is wrong and unjust. Cobb v. Malone and Collins, 92 Ala. 630, 9 So. 738.

We deem it unnecessary to discuss the testimony, but after a careful and painstaking review of it, we are not persuaded in view of the familiar rule announced in Cobb v. Malone and Collins, supra, that a reversal should be rested upon this action of the court. The evidence was in conflict as to how the injury occurred. There was evidence which, if believed, authorized the verdict which was rendered. The trial judge had the witnesses before him and had the advantage of observing their manner and demeanor on the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
9 cases
  • Johnson Pub. Co. v. Davis
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 18 Agosto 1960
    ...a motion for a new trial sought on the ground that the verdict and judgment are contrary to the weight of the evidence. Sorrell v. Lindsey, 247 Ala. 630, 25 So.2d 725; Housing Authority of City of Decatur v. Decatur Land Co., 258 Ala. 607, 64 So.2d 594. Futhermore the favorable presumption ......
  • Tidmore v. Mills
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • 15 Agosto 1947
    ... ... of Locomotive Firemen and Eng. v. Milner, 193 Ala. 68, ... 69 So. 10; Cobb v. Malone & Collins, 92 Ala. 630, 9 So ... 738; Sorrell v. Lindsey et al., 247 Ala. 630, 25 ... So.2d 725; Montgomery City Lines v. Hawes, 31 ... Ala.App. 564, 20 So.2d [33 Ala.App. 258] 536; Taylor ... ...
  • Prince v. Lowe
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 24 Febrero 1955
    ...[249 Ala. 442, 31 So.2d 366], supra; Birmingham Electric Co. v. Lawson, 239 Ala. 236, 194 So. 659; Cobb v. Malone, supra; Sorrell v. Lindsey, 247 Ala. 630, 25 So.2d 725.' We do not think the amount of the verdict, $15,000, was excessive under the principles stated Having treated all the arg......
  • Montgomery City Lines v. Davis
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 7 Octubre 1954
    ...Southern R. Co. v. Baum, supra; Birmingham Electric Co. v. Lawson, 239 Ala. 236, 194 So. 659; Cobb v. Malone, supra; Sorrell v. Lindsey, 247 Ala. 630, 25 So.2d 725. Under the evidence in the case at bar and the rules above stated, we do not feel that the verdict should be disturbed here for......
  • Get Started for Free