Campbell v. Clinton

Supreme Court of Alabama

Campbell v. Clinton

80 So. 423, 202 Ala. 341, 1918 Ala. LEXIS 423

Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided November 28, 1918·No. 8 Div. 135.·Published

Opinion

SOMERVILLE, J.

Whether or not defendant’s contract with plaintiff included a stipulation insuring the safety of the hired mules, as charged in the third count, was properly submitted to the jury, and the evidence was clearly sufficient to support a finding for plaintiff under that count. But the evidence is utterly without tendency to show that the mule was injured as the result of *342 any negligence on the part of defendant or his servant.

[1, 2] We think the trial court erred in refusing defendant’s requested instructions as to the first and second counts; and, as we cannot know under what count the jury found for plaintiff, the error must work a reversal of the judgment.

Reversed and remanded.

ANDERSON, C. X, and MAYFIELD and THOMAS, XL, concur.

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

SOMERVILLE, J.

Whether or not defendant’s contract with plaintiff included a stipulation insuring the safety of the hired mules, as charged in the third count, was properly submitted to the jury, and the evidence was clearly sufficient to support a finding for plaintiff under that count. But the evidence is utterly without tendency to show that the mule was injured as the result of *342 any negligence on the part of defendant or his servant.

[1, 2] We think the trial court erred in refusing defendant’s requested instructions as to the first and second counts; and, as we cannot know under what count the jury found for plaintiff, the error must work a reversal of the judgment.

Reversed and remanded.

ANDERSON, C. X, and MAYFIELD and THOMAS, XL, concur.

Campbell v. Clinton, 80 So. 423, 202 Ala. 341, 1918 Ala. LEXIS 423 (Ala. 1918).

Pincite

80 So. 423 (Campbell v. Clinton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.