Bugg v. Meredith
This text of 107 So. 805 (Bugg v. Meredith) 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.
Opinion
It may be conceded that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case; yet, if the evidence of the engineer was true, the defendant was entitled to the general charge. It may also be conceded that-the evidence of some of the witnesses, as to the tracks, was sufficient to afford an inference that it was untrue, so as to prevent the general charge for the defendant; still it was at least entitled to have its defense, with the hypothesis,' submitted to the jury as embodied in refused charge 6. Central of Ga. R. R. v. Brister, 40 So. 512, 145 Ala. 432; Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Pittman, 80 So. 141, 16 Ala. App. 567, and cases cited. We do not find that this charge was so substantially covered by the defendant’s given charges, or the oral charge, as to avoid a reversal of this case.
The judgment of' the circuit court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
107 So. 805, 214 Ala. 264, 107 Sp. 805, 1926 Ala. LEXIS 217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bugg-v-meredith-ala-1926.