Wilkey v. State ex rel. Smith, 6 Div. 603.
Decision Date | 21 December 1939 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 603. |
Citation | 192 So. 588,238 Ala. 595 |
Parties | WILKEY ET AL. v. STATE EX REL. SMITH. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J. Edgar Bowron, Judge.
Proceeding in nature of quo warranto by the State of Alabama, on the relation of Jim C. Smith, and Jim C. Smith, against J. L Wilkey and J. L. Wilkey, Adjuster, Incorporated. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal.
Reversed and remanded.
Lange Simpson, Brantley & Robinson, James A. Simpson, and Herbert J. Ward, all of Birmingham, for appellants.
Hugh A Locke, Pres. of Birmingham Bar Ass'n, of Birmingham, Richard T. Rives, Pres. of Ala. Bar Ass'n, of Montgomery, and Francis Hare, of Birmingham, for appellees.
The several assignments of error challenge the action of the trial court in giving to the opening statement of appellants' counsel, defining the issues of fact to the jury, evidential effect authorizing the general affirmative charge against appellants.
Appellants thus state the question: A jury having been impaneled and sworn and the issue of fact formed by the pleadings, the court was without authority to conclude the case without the introduction of the evidence (and to do this against defendants' objection) merely on counsel's opening statement to the jury.
Such statement is merely to advise the jury concerning the issues of facts involved. Constitution of Alabama, § 11; Code of 1923, §§ 8593, 8594, 8595 and 9498; Temple v. Cotton Transfer Company, 126 Neb. 287, 253 N.W. 349; Pietsch v. Pietsch, 245 Ill. 454, 92 N.E. 325, 29 L.R.A., N.S., 218; Fisher v. Fisher, 5 Wis. 472; Haley v. Western Transit Co., 76 Wis. 344, 45 N.W. 16; Smith v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 49 Wis. 322, 5 N.W. 804; Cohen v. Hurwitz, Sup., 127 N.Y.S. 341; Fletcher v. London & N.W. R. Co., 1892, 1 Q.B. 122.
The opening statement of counsel, under Alabama practice, is not evidence and does not necessarily contain all or even a major part of defendant's case. It is merely intended to indicate the issues of fact to the jury. A defendant is at liberty to present evidence of facts which were not mentioned or foreshadowed in defendant's opening statement to the jury. This is the well-considered announcement in leading cases. Brashear v. Rabenstein, 71 Kan. 455, 80 P. 950; Martin Emerich Outfitting Co. v. Siegel C. & Co., 108 Ill.App. 364; DeWane v. Hansow, 56 Ill.App. 575; Fillingham v. St. Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo.App. 573, 575, 77 S.W. 314; Charada Inv. Co. v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 188 Wash. 325, 62 P.2d 722; Caylor v. Casto et al., 137 Kan. 816, 22 P.2d 417; Carter v. King County, 120 Wash. 536, 208 P. 5, 6; Frisell v. Surry, 99 Wash. 201, 169 P. 317; Schripps v. Reilly, 35 Mich. 371, 388, 389, 24 Am.Rep. 575; 1 Thompson on Trials, § 267.
The procedure followed by the trial court presents a case of first impression in this court, in the trial court's directing a verdict upon the alleged admissions of defendants' counsel in his opening statement to the jury.
A search of our cases brings to light only one decision involving the effect of opening statements to the jury as admissions of fact. The pertinent decision was in Southern Railway Co. v. McCants, 26 Ala. App. 442, 163 So. 363, wherein the Court of Appeals stated that weight should be given to opening statements of counsel. The decision involved an appeal from judgment rendered upon the evidence after a trial including the testimony of witnesses for the parties. The question on appeal was whether the verdict was against the weight of evidence in the light of the testimony and the opening statement of counsel. The court held that an opening statement, in itself, was not sufficient to support a directed verdict, and that such statement was not conclusive. Certiorari was denied on said theory, 231 Ala. 22, 163 So. 365.
The question for decision is illustrated by our cases hereinafter noted.
In Loeb v. Webster, 213 Ala. 99, 104 So. 25, to unduly limit the opening statement of counsel was held to be error. In Birmingham Baptist Hospital v. Branton, 218 Ala. 464, 118 So. 741, it was held not to be improper to state the facts or to remark that the mother would suffer by baby's death. In Brown v. Leek, 221 Ala. 319, 128 So. 608, it was held that immaterial and prejudicial matter may not be introduced in opening statement of counsel, that the time, manner and character of said statement was within the discretion of the trial court. In Atlanta Life Ins. Co. v. Canady, 225 Ala. 377, 143 So. 561, it was held that opening statements may disclose the basis of the suit and the source of title. In Prudential Ins. Co. v. Calvin, 227 Ala. 146, 148 So. 837, it was held that counsel may, in good faith, show the theory on which the proceedings were had and state the facts of the res gestae.
In Atlanta Life Ins. Co. v. Ash, 228 Ala. 184, 188, 153 So. 261, 264, this Court said: * * *"
The English rule is stated as follows:
Fletcher v. London and North Western Railway Company, 1892, 1 Q.B. 122.
The Supreme Court of Illinois in the case of Pietsch v. Pietsch, 245 Ill. 454, 92 N.E. 325, 326, 29 L.R.A.,N.S., 218, reversed the trial court for directing a verdict on the opening statement of defendant's counsel, and held:
In the case of Temple v. Cotton Transfer Co. et al., 126 Neb. 287, 253 N.W. 349, 350, the court well...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
De Vito v. Katsch
...Cir., 804 F.2d 1434; Impero v. Whatcom County, 71 Wash.2d 438, 430 P.2d 173; Gibson v. Grant, 766 S.W.2d 706 [Mo.]; Wilkey v. State ex rel. Smith, 238 Ala. 595, 192 So. 588; Winter v. Unaitis, 123 Vt. 372, 189 A.2d 547; Ambrose v. Detroit Edison Co., 380 Mich. 445, 157 N.W.2d 232; Marcum v.......
-
Abbott v. Thetford
...Y. R. Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 184, 43 S.Ct. 270, 67 L.Ed. 605; Smith v. McCann, 24 How. 398, 16 L.Ed. 714; Wilkey v. State, 238 Ala. 595, 192 So. 588, 129 A.L.R. 549. This proceeding closely parallels that in Jaeger v. Freeman, (5 CA, 1969) 410 F.2d 528, 531, wherein the Court stated......
-
Foster & Creighton Co. v. St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co.
...which this suit was brought and is well within the limits of permitted argument as set out in the cases: Wilkey v. State ex rel. Smith, 238 Ala. 595, 192 So. 588, 129 A.L.R. 549; Atlanta Life Insurance Co. v. Ash, 228 Ala. 184, 153 So. 261; Birmingham News Co. v. Payne, 230 Ala. 524, 162 So......
-
Daniels v. State
......675 DANIELS v. STATE. 1 Div. 162.Supreme Court of AlabamaJanuary 21, 1943 . ...172,. 106 So. 692. . . In. Wilkey et al. v. State ex rel. Smith, 238 Ala. 595,. ......