White v. Blair

• Decision Date: 26 November 1891
• Citation: 95 Ala. 147,10 So. 257
• Parties: WHITE v. BLAIR.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

10 So. 257

95 Ala. 147

WHITE v. BLAIR.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 26, 1891

Appeal from circuit court, Barbour county; J. M. CARMICHAEL, Judge.

Suit by W. S. White against D. S. Blair to recover on a promissory note. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. From an order granting a new trial plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

H D. Clayton, for appellant.

J N. Williams and G. W. Peach, for respondent.

STONE C.J.

This was a suit by White, transferee, against Blair, on a promissory note alleged to have been made by the latter. The note purports to be payable to T. P. Cawthorn. Defendant interposed a sworn plea denying the execution of the note which is correct in form. Code 1886, p. 796, form 33. On the trial of the issues there were verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. Thereupon defendant moved for a new trial on several grounds, which the court granted, setting aside the verdict and judgment. From that order, granting a new trial plaintiff prosecutes the present appeal, under the act "to allow appeals to the supreme court from decisions of the city and circuit courts in this state, granting or refusing to grant motions for new trials." This act was approved February 16, 1891, (Sess. Acts 1890-891, p. 779.) Before that time our statutes made no provision for appeals in such cases. The appellate power conferred on this court by that statute is expressed in its last clause,-"to grant new trials, or to correct any errors of the circuit or city court in granting or refusing to grant the same." A correct reading of the statute clearly shows that our power is purely appellate, and cannot be invoked until motion has been made and acted on in the circuit or city court.

The rules for granting or withholding new trials after a verdict has been rendered are not always expressed in the same terms. Some courts give greater weight to the findings of a jury than others do, or, at least, they seem to do so. We are not inclined to adopt extreme views on either side of this question. We hold that no higher duty rests on a court of original jurisdiction than to assert his manhood, and grant or refuse to grant, a new trial, as the merits of the controversy may point out his duty. Railroad Co. v. Powers, 73 Ala. 244. The case of Cobb v. Malone, 9 South. Rep. 738, (at the last term,) brought this statute before us for the first time. In that case, as in this, the main ground of the motion was that the verdict was...