Southern Ry. Co. v. Kirsch
| Decision Date | 02 March 1907 |
| Citation | 43 So. 796,150 Ala. 659 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. KIRSCH. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied May 6, 1907.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Fayette County; S. H. Sprott, Judge.
Action by G. Kirsch against the Southern Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
This is an action for an alleged wrongful assault by the defendant's conductor or other servant while plaintiff was a passenger on one of defendant's regular passenger trains in Fayette county. The bill of exceptions as to the main issues on the original trial were stricken on motion of appellee, because signed more than six months after the trial of the original cause; but so much of it as contained the proceedings on motion for new trial was considered. The new trial was asked for upon the following grounds: "(1) Because the verdict was contrary to law; (2) because the verdict was contrary to the evidence; (3) because the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence; (4) because the verdict of the jury was excessive in amount; (5) because the court erred in granting the written charges requested by the plaintiff; (6) because the court severally and separately erred in refusing each of the written charges requested by the defendant; (7) because the verdict of the jury on the clear preponderance of the evidence should have been for the defendant." The assignments of error follow the grounds in the motion for the new trial and were no more specific. There was verdict on the original trial for plaintiff in the sum of $250.
Weatherly & Stokely and C. A. Beasley, for appellant.
J. J Mayfield, C. W. Sanders, and A. Leo Oberdorfer, for appellee.
It is conceded by appellant that the bill of exceptions is properly a part of the record only for the purpose of reviewing the action of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial and therefore the appellant does not insist on the first and second grounds in the assignment of errors. Ala. M. Ry Co. v. Brown, 129 Ala. 282, 29 So. 548; People's Saving Bank v. Keith, 136 Ala. 469, 34 So. 925.
Coming then, to the motion for a new trial, we find the first ground for the motion is that the verdict was contrary to law. It is conceded that this ground is too general, and we shall not consider it. Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630, 9 So. 738; Winter & Loeb v. Judkins, 106 Ala. 259,
17 So. 627; Ala. Midland Ry. Co. v. Brown, supra.
The fifth and sixth grounds in the motion cannot be considered, because of generality in their statement. Neither of the charges are set out in either ground of the motion. Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630, 9 So. 738; Winter & Loeb v. Judkins, 106 Ala. 259, 17 So. 627; Ashford v. Ashford, 136 Ala. 631, 34 So. 10, 96 Am. St. Rep. 82; Williams v. Coosa Mfg. Co., 138 Ala. 673, 33 So. 1015; Ala. Midland Ry. Co. v. Brown, 129 Ala. 282, 29 So. 548.
The evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Crosby
... ... Mobley, 69 So. 614; B.R.L. & P. Co. v. Glenn, ... 179 Ala. 263, 60 So. 111; L. & N.R.R. Co. v ... Glascow, 179 Ala. 251, 60 So. 103; Southern Ry. Co ... v. Lee, 167 Ala. 268, 52 So. 648; Culberson v ... Empire Coal Co., 156 Ala. 416, 47 So. 237; B.R. & E ... Co. v. Baird, 130 Ala ... considered because of their generality. Moneagle & Co. v ... Livingston, 150 Ala. 562, 43 So. 840; Southern Ry ... Co. v. Kirsch, 150 Ala. 659, 43 So. 796; Cobb v ... Malone, 92 Ala. 630, 9 So. 738; Williams v. Coosa ... Mfg. Co., 138 Ala. 673, 33 So. 1015; Ashford v ... ...
-
Hamilton v. Browning
...presumption in favor of the correctness of the verdict is strengthened. Bell v. Nichols, 245 Ala. 274, 16 So.2d 799; Southern R. Co. v. Kirsch, 150 Ala. 659, 43 So. 796; Smith v. Smith, 254 Ala. 404, 48 So.2d 546. See W. T. Smith Lumber Co. v. McKenzie, Ala. Sup., 55 So.2d 919. After allowi......
-
Prince v. Lowe, 5 Div. 601
...presumption in favor of the correctness of the verdict is strengthened. Bell v. Nichols, 245 Ala. 274, 16 So.2d 799; Southern R. Co. v. Kirsch, 150 Ala. 659, 43 So. 796; Smith v. Smith, 254 Ala. 404, 48 So.2d 546. See W. T. Smith Lumber Co. v. McKenzie, 55 So.2d 919. After allowing all reas......
-
Smith v. Smith
...presumption in favor of the correctness of the verdict is strengthened. Bell v. Nichols, 245 Ala. 274, 16 So.2d 799; Southern Railway Co. v. Kirsch, 150 Ala. 659, 43 So. 796. It is well to keep in mind that there was no burden upon the appellee to show in the court below that the appellant ......