White v. White, 7 Div. 932.
| Citation | 33 Ala.App. 403,34 So.2d 182 |
| Decision Date | 24 February 1948 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 932. |
| Parties | WHITE v. WHITE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Roy D. McCord, of Gadsden, for appellant.
Hugh Reed, Jr., of Centre, for appellee.
This is a suit by Dora White, as the executrix of the estate of her mother, Eula White, deceased, against her brother, William Y White.
The issues were submitted to the jury under counts one and three of the complaint. The former claimed for money loaned to defendant by the deceased mother. The latter was for alleged conversion of personal property.
The verdict of the jury was in favor of the plaintiff under both counts.
The court permitted the executrix to answer that her mother loaned some money to the appellant. The admissibility vel non of this testimony aside, it related to a fact that was not in dispute in the evidence. The defendant subsequently testified that he borrowed $100 from his mother. Herring v State, 242 Ala. 85, 5 So.2d 104; Bankhead v. State Ala.App., 32 So.2d 814.
On cross examination the appellant was required to answer this question: 'Did you ever mention that to your sister Mattie Newton that you had this check?' There is a bare reference to this matter in brief of counsel. Under the rule it is not sufficiently urged to invite our review. Barfield v. Bartlett, 23 Ala.App. 9, 119 So. 696. Be this as it may, the inquiry did not infringe upon the privilege of wide latitude of cross examination. Sovereign Camp, W. O. W. v. Davis, 242 Ala. 235, 5 So.2d 480.
It appears that 'an outburst' occurred in the courtroom at the close of the argument of appellant's counsel. The record does not indicate the nature or extent of the demonstration. The trial judge, on his own initiative, took prompt and firm action to destroy any possible influence which may have lodged in the minds of the jury by reason of the incident. The appellant did not invoke any ruling of the court, nor did he move for any further instructions.
The appellate courts are permitted to review only such questions as are presented at nisi prius. Lipscomb v. State, 32 Ala.App. 623, 29 So.2d 145.
While appellee's counsel was arguing to the jury, the opposing attorney stated: This objection to only a fragmentary portion of the assertion does not apprize us of the content or purport of the statement....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haralson v. State ex rel. King
...nor on original submission; therefore, we decline to answer them. See Beasley v. Beasley, 248 Ala. 690, 29 So.2d 232; White v. White, 33 Ala.App. 403, 34 So.2d 182; Edwards Ins. Agency v. Jones, 242 Ala. 624, 7 So.2d 567; Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. State, 223 Ala. 332, 135 So. Applic......
-
Casino Restaurant v. McWhorter
...of counsel. Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Martin, 131 Ala. 269, 30 So. 827; Simmons v. Cochran, 252 Ala. 461, 41 So.2d 579; White v. White, 33 Ala.App. 403, 34 So.2d 182; Walker v. Ingram, Ala.App., 37 So.2d It is urged, however, that because counts three and four omit to aver the issuance of any ......
-
Wilson v. State
...about which complaint is made, is not pointed out with sufficient detail. Pate v. State, 32 Ala.App. 365, 26 So.2d 214; White v. White, 33 Ala.App. 403, 34 So.2d 182. appears that the statement was withdrawn. In the state of the record, we do not have ample data to determine the merits of a......
-
Garrett v. State, 7 Div. 996
...questions related to matters which were not in dispute in the evidence. Jones v. State, 23 Ala.App. 395, 126 So. 178; White v. White, 33 Ala.App. 403, 34 So.2d 182; Simmons v. Cochran, 252 Ala. 461, 41 So.2d 579; Supreme Court Rule 45, Code 1940, Tit. 7 In his argument to the jury appellant......