Anderson v. Southern Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Anderson v. Southern Railway Co.

63 So. 473, 184 Ala. 468, 1913 Ala. LEXIS 576

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedNovember 13, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 63 So. 473 (Anderson v. Southern Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. Southern Railway Co., 63 So. 473, 184 Ala. 468, 1913 Ala. LEXIS 576 (Ala. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

MAYFIELD, J.

— This is an appeal from an order and judgment granting a motion for a new trial. Many grounds are assigned in the motion, and we are not in[469]*469formed by the record upon what ground the motion was granted. If on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, or to the great preponderance of the evidence, we are not willing to reverse the action of the trial court. The trial judge had the opportunity of seeing the witnesses and hearing the evidence — of which we are deprived. He therefore acted on some evidence of which, and of the nature of which, we are uninformed. The evidence, it is true, was largely circumstantial; but, under the rules of this court as announced in the case of Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630, 9 South. 738, we are not willing to reverse the ruling granting the motion for a new trial.

Affirmed.

Dowdell, C. J., and Anderson and de Grapfenried, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MAYFIELD, J.

— This is an appeal from an order and judgment granting a motion for a new trial. Many grounds are assigned in the motion, and we are not in[469]*469formed by the record upon what ground the motion was granted. If on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, or to the great preponderance of the evidence, we are not willing to reverse the action of the trial court. The trial judge had the opportunity of seeing the witnesses and hearing the evidence — of which we are deprived. He therefore acted on some evidence of which, and of the nature of which, we are uninformed. The evidence, it is true, was largely circumstantial; but, under the rules of this court as announced in the case of Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630, 9 South. 738, we are not willing to reverse the ruling granting the motion for a new trial.

Affirmed.

Dowdell, C. J., and Anderson and de Grapfenried, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 So. 473, 184 Ala. 468, 1913 Ala. LEXIS 576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-southern-railway-co-ala-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack