Birmingham Ry. L. & P. Co. v. Scisson

65 So. 332, 186 Ala. 70, 1914 Ala. LEXIS 398
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedApril 2, 1914
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 65 So. 332 (Birmingham Ry. L. & P. Co. v. Scisson) 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
Birmingham Ry. L. & P. Co. v. Scisson, 65 So. 332, 186 Ala. 70, 1914 Ala. LEXIS 398 (Ala. 1914).

Opinion

MAYFIELD, J. —

There was no error in overruling the demurrer to each count of the complaint. Each count stated a cause of action by a passenger against the carrier, for a failure to carry in accordance with contract.

There was ample evidence to support a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, if believed by the jury. The gen[72]*72eral affirmative charge for the defendant was therefore properly refused.

Trial courts cannot be required, to charge that there is, or is not, evidence of a particular character or evidence of a given fact. For this reason there was no error in refusing charge 7, requested by the defendant.

Charge 6 was calculated to mislead the jury, and was properly refused.

We find no reversible error in the record, and the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Anderson, C. J., and Somerville and Gardner, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Louisville & Nashville R. R. v. Jones
70 So. 133 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1915)
Birmingham Railway, Light & Power Co. v. Scisson
66 So. 2 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 So. 332, 186 Ala. 70, 1914 Ala. LEXIS 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/birmingham-ry-l-p-co-v-scisson-ala-1914.