Wright v. Waters
| Citation | 367 So.2d 960 |
| Parties | Boggan R. WRIGHT and Juanita W. Davison v. J. Douglas WATERS. 77-463. |
| Decision Date | 23 March 1979 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Robert F. Vargo of Brantley & Vargo, Bay Minette, for appellants.
Kenneth Cooper, Bay Minette, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment refusing to declare that a road over the lands of Boggan R. Wright, Juanita W. Davison and J. Douglas Waters was a public one and further refusing to order an obstruction removed from that road.
Appellants, Boggan R. Wright and Juanita W. Davison, and appellee, J. Douglas Waters are coterminous landowners. On 8 March 1977, Wright and Davison brought suit in the Circuit Court of Baldwin County, Alabama, against Waters seeking to establish a public road over the parties' contiguous lands and to enjoin the obstruction of the road by Waters. The case was tried to a jury, special findings were submitted, and the jury determined that the road was not a public one. Judgment for Waters was entered accordingly on 17 January 1978. Appellants filed a motion for a new trial which was denied. This appeal ensued.
Appellants contend:
(1) the great preponderance of the evidence as to the character and use of the road in question will not support the verdict;
(2) the trial court erred in refusing to grant appellants' motion for a directed verdict;
(3) the trial court committed reversible error in giving orally the charge requested by Waters in written instruction No. 16, to-wit: "The Court charges you, members of the Jury, that an easement cannot be obtained by prescription unless the user be exclusive, adverse, uninterrupted, and inconsistent with the rights of the owner to its use and enjoyment";
(4) the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to give appellants' instruction No. 10 which states: "The general use of a roadway by the public for twenty years, if unexplained, raises a presumption of the existence of all the other elements and conditions necessary to create a highway by prescription";
(5) the trial court erred in limiting appellants' counsel to four to five minutes for the verification, introduction, and orientation of 47 photographs which were not cumulative and which dealt with a main or controlling fact or issue.
We have reviewed the record and cannot agree that appellants' motion for directed verdict was improperly denied or that the verdict is not supported by the evidence. On appeal from refusal of the trial court to give the affirmative charge (now a directed verdict) for appellants, evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to appellee, and the action of the trial court will be affirmed if a reasonable inference adverse to appellants may be drawn from the evidence. Elba Wood Products, Inc. v. Brackin, 356 So.2d 119 (Ala.1978). Similarly, where, as in the instant case, the jury's verdict is based on evidence or reasonable inferences thereon, it is not the function of this court to consider other conclusions which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Standard Plan, Inc. v. Tucker
...error or afford him an opportunity to correct any such error. See, e.g., Burnett v. Martin, 405 So.2d 23 (Ala.1981); Wright v. Waters, 367 So.2d 960 (Ala.1979). Compare with Grayco Resources, supra, where the objecting party adequately made the trial court aware of the grounds for its Stand......
-
Grayco Resources, Inc. v. Poole
...has waived appellate review based on the "grounds" requirement of Rule 51. See Burnett v. Martin, 405 So.2d 23 (Ala.1981), Wright v. Waters, 367 So.2d 960 (Ala.1979). We have also said, however, that an overly rigid enforcement of Rule 51 should not be permitted. Hosey v. Seibels Bruce Grou......
-
American Fire & Cas. Co., Inc. v. Archie
...charges" is not sufficient under Rule 51, A.R.C.P., which requires specific objection and statement of grounds therefor. Wright v. Waters, 367 So.2d 960 (Ala.1979). We next comment that the second referenced objection appears to apply to the oral charge and complains of the absence of certa......
-
Cupps v. Upton
...on appeal contains evidence sufficient to warrant reversal." Trimble v. City of Prichard, 438 So.2d 745, 747 (Ala.1983); Wright v. Waters, 367 So.2d 960 (Ala.1979); see also Ex parte Edwards, 450 So.2d 464 At the close of Upton's evidence during trial, Cupps made an oral request for product......