State v. Young
Decision Date | 24 August 1967 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 435 |
Citation | 202 So.2d 714,281 Ala. 349 |
Parties | STATE of Alabama v. Samuel C. YOUNG et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Kenneth Cooper, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Bay Minette, for appellant.
E. G. Rickarby, Fairhope, for appellees.
The state, as condemnor, appeals from a judgment awarding damages and compensation to a landowner for land condemned for use as a public road.
In the circuit court, the parties stipulated, among other things:
The state's motion for new trial was overruled, but the judgment overruling the motion for new trial is not assigned as error.
Where the refusal of the trial court to grant a motion for new trial is not assigned as error, the appellate court cannot consider the judgment overruling the motion for new trial. Glass v. Meyer, Son & Co., 124 Ala. 332, 26 So. 890. There is no question before us as to the weight of the evidence, inasmuch as the action of the trial court in overruling the state's motion for new trial is not assigned as error. Jeffrey Manufacturing Co. v. Hannah, 268 Ala. 262, 267, 105 So.2d 672.
The assignments of error recite as follows:
Assignment 3 is to effect that the verdict is contrary to the instructions given to the jury by the court. This assignment amounts to nothing more than an assertion that the verdict is contrary to the law of the case. The assignment does not assert that the trial court erred in any ruling. Such an assignment presents nothing for review because it does not allege error for failure to grant the motion for new trial nor does it allege error by the trial court in any respect. King v. Jackson, 264 Ala. 339, 342, 87 So.2d 623; Standard Oil Co. v. Johnson, 276 Ala. 578, 580, 165 So.2d 361; Doughty v. City of Fayette, 278 Ala. 121, 122, 176 So.2d 481.
Assignment 4 asserts that the verdict of the jury is not supported by the evidence. The assignment alleges no error in any ruling of the trial court and is insufficient to present any question for review. The reasons are stated in Life & Casualty Ins. Co. of Tennessee v. Womack, 228 Ala. 70, 151 So. 880, where this court held insufficient an assignment which recited: "There is no evidence to support the verdict and judgment of the Lower Court." Thomas v. Brook, 274 Ala. 462, 149 So.2d 809.
Assignments 1, 2, and 5 assert that the court erred in admitting evidence over appellant's objection.
Under the rule laid down in State v. Dunlap, 279 Ala. 418, 186 So.2d 132, when the appellant appeals from a judgment of condemnation, and the only question tried is the amount of the award, the appellant cannot have review of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Deramus v. Alabama Power Co.
...stated therein. Thompson v. State, 267 Ala. 22, 99 So.2d 198; Standard Oil Co. v. Johnson, 276 Ala. 578, 165 So.2d 361; State v. Young, 281 Ala. 349, 202 So.2d 714. If the ruling on the motion for new trial is assigned as error, grounds adequately stated in the motion, and argued in brief w......
-
Standard Oil Co. v. State
...County Board of Education, 282 Ala. 303, 211 So.2d 146 (1968); State v. Davis, 282 Ala. 438, 212 So.2d 686 (1968); State v. Young, 281 Ala. 349, 202 So.2d 714 (1967); State v. East Woodland Hills, Inc., 281 Ala. 430, 203 So.2d 447 (1967); State v. Dunlap, 279 Ala. 418, 186 So.2d 132 (1966);......
-
State v. Dempsey
...allege error for failure to grant the motion for a new trial, nor do they allege error By the trial court in any respect. State v. Young, 281 Ala. 349, 202 So.2d 714; Doughty v. City of Fayette, 278 Ala. 121, 176 So.2d 481; King v. Jackson, 264 Ala. 339, 87 So.2d 623. It should be observed ......
-
Greer v. Eye Foundation, Inc.
...880; King v. Jackson, 264 Ala. 339, 87 So.2d 623; Bertolla v. Kaiser, 267 Ala. 435, 103 So.2d 736; Thomas v. Brook, supra; State v. Young, 281 Ala. 349, 202 So.2d 714; Thornton v. Tutt, 283 Ala. 72, 214 So.2d Assignment 1. Plaintiff testified that on the date of her injury, June 6, 1965, sh......