Tankersley v. Webb
Decision Date | 18 August 1955 |
Docket Number | 5 Div. 620 |
Citation | 263 Ala. 234,82 So.2d 259 |
Parties | Bessie H. TANKERSLEY v. Hilda S. WEBB. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
McKee & Maye, Opelika, for appellant.
Walker & Walker, Opelika, for appellee.
Appellant (plaintiff below) sued to recover damages for the alleged conversion of certain enumerated items of personal property including 'miscellaneous hand painted china as follows: * * *.' Appellee pleaded in short by consent. The jury returned a verdict for the appellee and from the judgment rendered thereon appellant perfected this appeal.
The two assignments of error raise the point that the trial court erroneously overruled the objection of appellant to certain evidence. Each instance of which appellant complains arose on the cross examination of the appellant. We omit some remarks in the record which are not necessary to the decision before us. The first follows:
The second instance is as follows:
It should be noted that the only ground of objection interposed in the first instance was 'that is immaterial to this case.' No ground of objection was interposed in the second instance and no motion to exclude was made in either instance.
Where as here the defendant has pleaded 'in short by consent the general issue, with leave to give in evidence any matter which, if well pleaded, would be admissible in evidence on defense of this action, in whole or in part, to have effect as if so pleaded,' the admission of evidence that tends to support any valid defense, not required to be presented by sworn plea, was proper. Johnston v. Isley, 240 Ala. 217, 198 So. 348, and authorities cited therein.
Circuit Court Rule 33, Code 1940, Tit. 7 Appendix, applies to the objection that the matter objected to was immaterial. It reads:
See Conway v. Robinson, 216 Ala. 495, 113 So. 531.
In the first ruling of the lower court which is assigned as error, the answer was not responsive, and was in the negative when the witness said, 'How she assisted, I don't know.' The rule that the overruling of an objection to a question is harmless, where the witness answers that he does not know, or does not remember, is applicable here. Brown v. Johnston Bros., 135 Ala. 608, 33 So. 683; Gates v. Morton Hardware Co., 146 Ala. 692, 40 So. 509; Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Harris, 175 Ala. 323, 57 So. 854; Kellett v. Cochran, 239 Ala. 313, 194 So. 805; 2 Alabama Digest, Appeal and Error, k1048(5).
The second ruling of the lower court which is assigned as error does not constitute reversible error. The answer 'not all of it' was in the negative and favorable to the objector (appellant). National Surety Co. v. Boone, 227 Ala. 599, 151 So. 447; Ballard v. Baker, 227 Ala. 143, 148 So. 835; Page v. Hawk, 250 Ala. 26, 33 So.2d 8.
As to both rulings of the lower court we think the principle is applicable that where the ground of objection to the admission of evidence was general or no ground was stated, the action of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Holt v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...Crawford Coal Co. v. Stephens, 382 So.2d 536 (Ala.1980); Granberry v. Gilbert, 276 Ala. 486, 163 So.2d 641 (1964); Tankersley v. Webb, 263 Ala. 234, 82 So.2d 259 (1955). However, we have also recognized that a specific ground is not required and a general objection will suffice if the groun......
-
Southern Elec. Generating Co. v. Lance
...of the witness, who replied, 'I don't remember, I don't recall talking to me about the valuation of Wolf property.' In Tankersley v. Webb, 263 Ala. 234, 82 So.2d 259, 260, we '* * * The rule that the overruling of an objection to a question is harmless, where the witness answers that he doe......
-
Baldwin v. McClendon
...assigned for the objection, and the evidence elicited was not patently inadmissible. No reversible error is present. Tankersley v. Webb, 263 Ala. 234, 82 So.2d 259; Chandler v. Goodson, 254 Ala. 293, 48 So.2d 223; All American Life and Casualty Co. v. Dillard, 287 Ala. 673, 255 So.2d 17. In......
-
Davis v. Southland Corp.
...Crawford Coal Co. v. Stephens, 382 So.2d 536 (Ala.1980); Granberry v. Gilbert, 276 Ala. 486, 163 So.2d 641 (1964); Tankersley v. Webb, 263 Ala. 234, 82 So.2d 259 (1955). Although a specific objection is unnecessary where the evidence is patently inadmissible, Crawford Coal Co., supra, such ......