St. Clair County v. Martin, 7 Div. 445
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | GOODWYN; LIVINGSTON, C. J., and COLEMAN; SIMPSON; SIMPSON |
| Citation | 139 So.2d 617,273 Ala. 302 |
| Parties | ST. CLAIR COUNTY v. U. C. MARTIN et al. |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 445 |
| Decision Date | 29 March 1962 |
Page 617
v.
U. C. MARTIN et al.
[273 Ala. 303] Maurice F. Bishop, Birmingham, and Starnes & Holladay, Pell City, for appellant.
John H. Martin, Pell City, for appellees.
GOODWYN, Justice.
This is a condemnation suit brought by St. Clair County to acquire a right of way for a limited access interstate highway. The right of way consists of 42.41 acres of a 431 acre tract owned by appellees. Both the county and the property owners appealed to the circuit court from the probate court award of $7,800. In the circuit court the only issue concerned the amount of damages and compensation. The jury verdict was for $9,000, on which judgment of condemnation was duly rendered. This appeal is brought by the county from that judgment and also from the order overruling the county's motion for a new trial.
The real question argued concerns a portion of the trial court's oral charge to the jury and the refusal of appellant's requested charges with respect to the loss of access to the proposed highway being an element of damages. The same question was presented in St. Clair County v. Bukacek, 272
Page 618
Ala. 323, 131 So.2d 683, and decided contrary to appellant's insistence.Three of the other four points argued concern the overruling of appellant's objections to the admission of testimony. Whether there was error in any of these rulings, we find it unnecessary to decide. After an examination of the entire cause, we are not persuaded that such rulings, if error, propably injuriously affected substantial rights of appellant so as to call for a reversal. Supreme Court Rule 45, 261 Ala. XIX, XXXVII; Code 1940, Tit. 7, 1955 Cum. Pocket Part, Appendix; Code 1940, Recompiled 1958, Tit. 7, Appendix.
The fourth point charges error in overruling two of appellant's motions for mistrial based upon alleged prejudicial argument to the jury by appellees' counsel and in overruling appellant's objection to a portion of the argument. Due consideration has been given to these rulings. We are not persuaded that they furnish a basis for reversal. Much must be left, in the matter of an attorney's argument, to the enlightened judgment of the trial court, with presumptions in favor of its rulings. To justify a reversal, we must conclude that substantial prejudice has resulted. In the light of the record as a whole, we cannot say that substantial prejudice to appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Twilley v. State, 6 Div. 341
...348 So.2d 1049 (Ala.1977); Adams v. State, supra; Freeman v. Hall, 286 Ala. 161, 238 So.2d 330 (1970); St. Clair County v. Martin, 273 Ala. 302, 139 So.2d 617 In argument to the jury, counsel may not argue as a fact that which is not in evidence, but he may state or comment on all proper in......
-
Mordecai v. Scott
...been paid by her. We are unable to say that this effect was not intentional on the part of the legislature in amending the statute.' 273 Ala. at 302, 139 So.2d at In Harrod v. Farmer, the parties challenging the widow's rights were collateral heirs, not adult children, as in the case presen......
-
Adams v. State
...because of attorney's argument to jury, this Court must conclude that substantial prejudice has resulted. St. Clair County v. Martin, 273 Ala. 302, 139 So.2d 617 In argument to the jury, counsel may not argue as a fact that which is not in evidence, but he may state or comment on all proper......
-
Freeman v. Hall, 6 Div. 617
...Ala. 440, 97 So.2d 549; Occidental Life Insurance Co. of California v. Nichols, 266 Ala. 521, 97 So.2d 879; St. Clair County v. Martin, 273 Ala. 302, 139 So.2d 617; Beavers v. Boykin, 273 Ala. 413, 142 So.2d 10; Campbell v. Davis, 274 Ala. 555, 150 So.2d The next argument made by the appell......
-
Twilley v. State, 6 Div. 341
...348 So.2d 1049 (Ala.1977); Adams v. State, supra; Freeman v. Hall, 286 Ala. 161, 238 So.2d 330 (1970); St. Clair County v. Martin, 273 Ala. 302, 139 So.2d 617 In argument to the jury, counsel may not argue as a fact that which is not in evidence, but he may state or comment on all proper in......
-
Mordecai v. Scott
...been paid by her. We are unable to say that this effect was not intentional on the part of the legislature in amending the statute.' 273 Ala. at 302, 139 So.2d at In Harrod v. Farmer, the parties challenging the widow's rights were collateral heirs, not adult children, as in the case presen......
-
Adams v. State
...because of attorney's argument to jury, this Court must conclude that substantial prejudice has resulted. St. Clair County v. Martin, 273 Ala. 302, 139 So.2d 617 In argument to the jury, counsel may not argue as a fact that which is not in evidence, but he may state or comment on all proper......
-
Freeman v. Hall, 6 Div. 617
...Ala. 440, 97 So.2d 549; Occidental Life Insurance Co. of California v. Nichols, 266 Ala. 521, 97 So.2d 879; St. Clair County v. Martin, 273 Ala. 302, 139 So.2d 617; Beavers v. Boykin, 273 Ala. 413, 142 So.2d 10; Campbell v. Davis, 274 Ala. 555, 150 So.2d The next argument made by the appell......