Cumberland Valley Nursery Company v. Parrish

Alabama Court of Appeals

Cumberland Valley Nursery Company v. Parrish

118 So. 676, 22 Ala. App. 617, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 259

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 8, 1928

Docket7 Div. 354.

StatusPublished

This text of 118 So. 676 (Cumberland Valley Nursery Company v. Parrish) 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

Cumberland Valley Nursery Company v. Parrish, 118 So. 676, 22 Ala. App. 617, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 259 (Ala. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

This action was a suit for damages for breach of contract, and was tried by the court below without a jury. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff for $250, from which defendant appealed.

We will not disturb the judgment in this case, which, as stated, was rendered by the court without a jury and predicated upon controverted facts which appear from the record, and assignment of errors, to have formed the only issues involved upon the trial of this case. The usual presumption in favor of the finding of the court upon questions of fact must of necessity be here indulged. • We do not regard the judgment rendered as being contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence adduced upon the trial. We conclude, and so hold, that the case was fairly tried and proper judgment rendered. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

This action was a suit for damages for breach of contract, and was tried by the court below without a jury. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff for $250, from which defendant appealed.

We will not disturb the judgment in this case, which, as stated, was rendered by the court without a jury and predicated upon controverted facts which appear from the record, and assignment of errors, to have formed the only issues involved upon the trial of this case. The usual presumption in favor of the finding of the court upon questions of fact must of necessity be here indulged. • We do not regard the judgment rendered as being contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence adduced upon the trial. We conclude, and so hold, that the case was fairly tried and proper judgment rendered. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 So. 676, 22 Ala. App. 617, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cumberland-valley-nursery-company-v-parrish-alactapp-1928.