Burger v. Watts

Alabama Court of Appeals

Burger v. Watts

140 So. 886, 25 Ala. App. 79, 1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 88

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 5, 1932

Docket8 Div. 514.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 140 So. 886 (Burger v. Watts) 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

Burger v. Watts, 140 So. 886, 25 Ala. App. 79, 1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 88 (Ala. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

From an order or judgment granting the motion of appellee (who was the plaintiff in the court below) to set aside the verdict of the jury, etc., which had been returned, etc., in favor of appellants (who were the defendants in that court), the appellants prosecute this appeal.

While we might, if called thereto, concede with appellants that a “jury question” was presented, on the main trial, yet, “when the trial court grants a new trial, its conclusion should not be disturbed when it sees and hears the witnesses, unless the great weight of the evidence supported the finding so set .aside. That is to say, when the trial court grants ,a new trial, the same presumption must be indulged in favor of granting the motion that would be indulged had the ¡motion been overruled.” Ex parte Landers (Landers v. Moore et al.), 214 Ala. 20, 106 So. 225.

We have carefully examined the evidence, .and it is “not so manifestly and palpably in

favor of the verdict” as- to “justify reversal of the order granting a new trial.” Wainwright v. Anderton, 218 Ala. 623, 119 So. 861.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

RICE, J.

From an order or judgment granting the motion of appellee (who was the plaintiff in the court below) to set aside the verdict of the jury, etc., which had been returned, etc., in favor of appellants (who were the defendants in that court), the appellants prosecute this appeal.

While we might, if called thereto, concede with appellants that a “jury question” was presented, on the main trial, yet, “when the trial court grants a new trial, its conclusion should not be disturbed when it sees and hears the witnesses, unless the great weight of the evidence supported the finding so set .aside. That is to say, when the trial court grants ,a new trial, the same presumption must be indulged in favor of granting the motion that would be indulged had the ¡motion been overruled.” Ex parte Landers (Landers v. Moore et al.), 214 Ala. 20, 106 So. 225.

We have carefully examined the evidence, .and it is “not so manifestly and palpably in

favor of the verdict” as- to “justify reversal of the order granting a new trial.” Wainwright v. Anderton, 218 Ala. 623, 119 So. 861.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 So. 886, 25 Ala. App. 79, 1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burger-v-watts-alactapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack