Chevrolet Motor Co. v. Caton

108 So. 644, 21 Ala. App. 393, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 160
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 18, 1926
Docket1 Div. 652.
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 108 So. 644 (Chevrolet Motor Co. v. Caton) 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
Chevrolet Motor Co. v. Caton, 108 So. 644, 21 Ala. App. 393, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 160 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Opinion

RICE, J.

Appellee (plaintiff below), suing in separate counts of her complaint, for the wrongful taking, conversion, and unlawful detention, of one Chevrolet automobile, had verdict and judgment against appellant (defendant), for one cent and costs. From the later judgment of the trial court granting her motion to set aside the verdict of the jury and the judgment entered thereon, and awarding to her a new trial, appellant brings this appeal.

A former appeal of this case was transferred to and decided by the Supreme Court. Chevrolet Motor Co. et al. v. Caton, 212 Ala. App. 42, 101 So. 656. In that appeal all questions of substantive law of the case were, at least by implication, disposed of.

Nothing is presented here, but the propriety vel non of the action of the lower court in granting appellee’s motion, based on the ground, among others, that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, to set aside the verdict and judgment in her favor for one cent and costs.

As stated in the opinion in Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630, 635, 9 So. 738, 740:

“ * * * Decisions [in situations of the kind here] granting new trials will not be reversed, unless the evidence plainly and palpably supports the verdict.”

We cannot say that the conditions for a reversal exist on this appeal. We have carefully examined the evidence in the ease, and, allowing the usual presumptions in favor of the correctness of the trial court’s ruling by virtue of his having seen and heard the witnesses testify, we are unable to hold that the verdict of the jury was “plainly and palpably supported by the evidence.” As the case must be tried again we have deemed it unwise to discuss the said evidence in detail, in support of our holding.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Chevrolet Motor Co. v. Caton
116 So. 325 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
108 So. 644, 21 Ala. App. 393, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chevrolet-motor-co-v-caton-alactapp-1926.