Bevill v. Wilkins

Alabama Court of Appeals

Bevill v. Wilkins

103 So. 306, 20 Ala. App. 510, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 51

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 17, 1925

Docket6 Div. 700.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 103 So. 306 (Bevill v. Wilkins) 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

Bevill v. Wilkins, 103 So. 306, 20 Ala. App. 510, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 51 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

On the trial of the original case there was verdict and judgment for defendant. Within 30 days, and within the term of court plaintiff moved the court to set aside the judgment and for a new trial. This motion was granted, and from the judgment granting the motion is this appeal.

Among the grounds assigned in the motion was:

“The verdict of the jury is contrary to the great weight of the evidence in this cause.”

The judgment setting aside the verdict did not specify upon which of the grounds the motion was granted. Where a motion for new trial is granted upon the ground that the verdict is contrary to the great weight of the evidence, the appellate court will not reverse the judgment, unless the evidence in the cause plainly and palpably supports the verdict. Cobb v. Malone et al., 92 Ala. 630, 9 So. 738; Smith v. Tombigbee & N. Ry. Co., 141 Ala. 332, 37 So. 389; Mallory S. S. Co. v. Druhan, 16 Ala. App. 438, 78 So. 636. Under the above-cited decisions, and many others, the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

On the trial of the original case there was verdict and judgment for defendant. Within 30 days, and within the term of court plaintiff moved the court to set aside the judgment and for a new trial. This motion was granted, and from the judgment granting the motion is this appeal.

Among the grounds assigned in the motion was:

“The verdict of the jury is contrary to the great weight of the evidence in this cause.”

The judgment setting aside the verdict did not specify upon which of the grounds the motion was granted. Where a motion for new trial is granted upon the ground that the verdict is contrary to the great weight of the evidence, the appellate court will not reverse the judgment, unless the evidence in the cause plainly and palpably supports the verdict. Cobb v. Malone et al., 92 Ala. 630, 9 So. 738; Smith v. Tombigbee & N. Ry. Co., 141 Ala. 332, 37 So. 389; Mallory S. S. Co. v. Druhan, 16 Ala. App. 438, 78 So. 636. Under the above-cited decisions, and many others, the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 So. 306, 20 Ala. App. 510, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bevill-v-wilkins-alactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack