Benton Mercantile Co. v. Boyette

Alabama Court of Appeals

Benton Mercantile Co. v. Boyette

81 So. 856, 17 Ala. App. 78, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 102

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 22, 1919

Docket4 Div. 576.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 81 So. 856 (Benton Mercantile Co. v. Boyette) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benton Mercantile Co. v. Boyette, 81 So. 856, 17 Ala. App. 78, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 102 (Ala. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, J.

[1] Assignment of error No. 1 is based upon a question of fact, and relates to the ruling of the court in refusing the affirmative charge to appellant. Upon an examination of all the evidence it appears that it was in sharp conflict and for that reason the affirmative charge was properly refused.

[2] The remaining assignment of error relates to the ruling of the court in refusing to grant appellant a new trial. No exception is shown to have been reserved to the action of the court in denying the motion, nor is there a compliance with the law relative to the right to have reviewed the ruling of the court in this connection. Acts 1915, p. 722; Ross v. State, 78 South. 309; 1 Powell v. Folmar (Sup.) 78 South. 47. 2 This question, therefore, is not presented; and, no error appearing, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

16 Ala. App. 393.

2

201 Ala. 271.

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

BRICKEN, J.

[1] Assignment of error No. 1 is based upon a question of fact, and relates to the ruling of the court in refusing the affirmative charge to appellant. Upon an examination of all the evidence it appears that it was in sharp conflict and for that reason the affirmative charge was properly refused.

[2] The remaining assignment of error relates to the ruling of the court in refusing to grant appellant a new trial. No exception is shown to have been reserved to the action of the court in denying the motion, nor is there a compliance with the law relative to the right to have reviewed the ruling of the court in this connection. Acts 1915, p. 722; Ross v. State, 78 South. 309; 1 Powell v. Folmar (Sup.) 78 South. 47. 2 This question, therefore, is not presented; and, no error appearing, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

16 Ala. App. 393.

2

201 Ala. 271.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 So. 856, 17 Ala. App. 78, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benton-mercantile-co-v-boyette-alactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack