Dillehay Bros. v. Cannon

88 So. 901, 205 Ala. 608, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 562
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided April 21, 1921·No. 8 Div. 335.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

McCLELLAN, J.

The previous appeal in this cause to the Court of Appeals is reported in 84 South. 549, 550. 3 No application for rehearing in the Court of Appeals appears to have been made or acted upon, and hence no recourse to certiorari to this court to review that action of the Court of Appeals. It *609 was there decided that the plaintiff was due the general affirmative charge.

The judgment entry on the present appeal recites:

“Came the parties by attorney, and, this cause being called for trial, and upon the orders of the court that the pleadings be settled, and the issues being the same as upon tlu; former trial of-this cause, plaintiff introduced the same evidence as upon the former trial, and both parties made the same objections to evidence as upon the former trial, and the court made the same rulings upon the evidence as upon the former trial, and, issue being thus joined, let a jury come,” etc.

On retrial, after reversal, the court gave the general affirmative charge for plaintiff, as was its duty under the opinion of the Court of Appeals. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J„ and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
3

17 Ala. App. 294.

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

Dillehay Bros. v. Cannon, 88 So. 901, 205 Ala. 608, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 562 (Ala. 1921).

88 So. 901 (Dillehay Bros. v. Cannon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Cornett
106 So. 242 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1925)