Yates v. Barnett
Decision Date | 24 March 1927 |
Docket Number | 5 Div. 971 |
Citation | 215 Ala. 554,112 So. 122 |
Parties | YATES v. BARNETT. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Randolph County; S.L. Brewer, Judge.
Action for damages by M.D. Barnett against D.M. Yates, as owner of the West Point Overland Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Code 1923, § 7326. Affirmed.
Hooton & Moon, of Roanoke, for appellant.
Pruet & Glass, of Ashland, for appellee.
The case was tried upon counts 1 and 5. There was a jury and verdict for the plaintiff. The record proper--"judgment entry"--fails to show a specific ruling on demurrer, and we do not consider the assignment of errors predicated on ruling on demurrer to the complaint. Berger v Dempster, 204 Ala. 305, 85 So. 392; Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Pemberton, 202 Ala. 55, 79 So. 393; Ala. Chemical Co. v. Niles, 156 Ala. 298, 47 So 239.
To present for review the denial of the motion for a new trial that ruling and exception thereto must be duly incorporated in the bill of exceptions. Stokes v. Hinton, 197 Ala. 230, 72 So. 503; Smith v. Yearwood, 197 Ala. 680, 73 So. 384; L. & N.R. Co. v. Phillips, 202 Ala. 502, 80 So. 790; Birmingham Water Works v. Justice, 204 Ala. 547, 86 So. 389; Pacific Fire Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Burnett, 212 Ala. 287, 102 So. 214.
There were conflicting reasonable tendencies of evidence, or open to reasonable inferences unfavorable to him who requests such charge, and affirmative instruction should therefore properly be refused. McMillan v. Aiken, 205 Ala. 35, 40, 88 So. 135.
Refused charge 4 was sufficiently covered by given charge 2 and the oral charge.
There was no error in allowing the witness Barnett, who had qualified as an expert machinist, to answer the question of the effect on the motor of driving a new car at an excessive rate of speed. It was material and relevant with the other evidence and the issues of fact presented to the jury. The witness, as an expert, may give an opinion, after inspection or with a knowledge of the facts made the subject of inquiry, whether the motor was in first-class condition at the time and circumstances inquired about. Burton & Son v. May, 212 Ala. 435, 103 So. 46.
The objection of plaintiff to the question to Barnett, whether he "made a proposition to settle," was properly sustained. It called for the fact and substance of a bona fide offer of compromise of the suit and claim thereby made and such offers are regarded in nature as confidential overtures of pacification. The policy of the law favors amicable...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Aaron v. State
...or restate the wellunderstood rule. Penton v. Penton, 223 Ala. 282, 135 So. 481; Jones v. Keith, 223 Ala. 36, 134 So. 630; Yates v. Barnett, 215 Ala. 554, 112 So. 122; Burton & Sons v. May, 212 Ala. 435, 103 So. 46; Oden-Elliott Lumber Co. v. Daniel-Gaddis Lumber Co., 210 Ala. 582, 98 So. 7......
-
Green v. City of Birmingham
... ... Whaley, 187 Ala. 525, 65 So ... 542, the suit was for extraneous substance on the sidewalk ... In ... City of Bessemer v. Barnett, 212 Ala. 202, 102 So ... 23, 24, the injury was caused by negligence in the ... maintenance of the street and the court said: ... "Even ... party requesting such a charge. McMillan v. Aiken et ... al., 205 Ala. 35, 40, 88 So. 135; Yates v ... Barnett, 215 Ala. 554, 112 So. 122; Ward v ... Limblad, 196 Ala. 146, 72 So. 80; Mobile & O. R. Co ... v. Glover, 150 Ala. 386, 43 So ... ...
-
J. C. Byram & Co. v. Livingston
... ... demurrer, and the sufficiency of the complaint will not be ... considered on appeal. Yates v. Barnett, 215 Ala ... 554, 112 So. 122; Berger v. Dempster, 204 Ala. 305, ... 85 So. 392; Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Pemberton, ... 202 Ala ... ...
-
Watson v. Hardaway-Covington Cotton Co.
...or restate the well-understood rule. Penton v. Penton (Ala. Sup.) 135 So. 481; Jones v. Keith (Ala. Sup.) 134 So. 630; Yates v. Barnett, 215 Ala. 554, 112 So. 122; Burton & Sons v. May, 212 Ala. 435, 103 So. Oden-Elliott Lumber Co. v. Daniel-Gaddis Lumber Co., 210 Ala. 582, 98 So. 730; Slos......