Dixie Pratt Coal Mining Co. v. Arrant Ins. Agency

Supreme Court of Alabama

Dixie Pratt Coal Mining Co. v. Arrant Ins. Agency

96 So. 193, 209 Ala. 289, 1923 Ala. LEXIS 402

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedApril 26, 1923

Docket6 Div. 863.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 96 So. 193 (Dixie Pratt Coal Mining Co. v. Arrant Ins. Agency) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dixie Pratt Coal Mining Co. v. Arrant Ins. Agency, 96 So. 193, 209 Ala. 289, 1923 Ala. LEXIS 402 (Ala. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

SOMERVILLE, J.

There being no bill of exceptions in tbe record, we must presume that the evidence justified the trial judge iu giving the general affirmative charge for plaintiffs on one or' more of the common counts. Such being the presumption—

“prejudicial error cannot be imputed to the action of the trial court in overruling demurrers to several special counts of the complaint which imperfectly set up the contract.” Barnes v. Marshall, 193 Ala. 94, 98, 69 South. 436, 438; Finney v. Newson, 203 Ala. 191, 82 South. 441.

For the same reasons, the action of the trial court in overruling the motion for a new trial cannot be reviewed.

The appellant wholly fails to show prejudicial error in the rulings complained of, and-the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed,

ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLELLAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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