East Tenn., Va. & Geo. Railroad v. Clark
This text of 74 Ala. 443 (East Tenn., Va. & Geo. Railroad v. Clark) 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.
Opinion
— In the argument of counsel it is contended, that the Circuit Court erred in giving each of the charges numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8. We do not think there is reversible error in either of these charges. If there was evidence tending to show contributory negligence (we do not decide there was such evidence), that would present a phase of the question defensive in its character, and, at most, would call for an explanatory charge. To put the court in error, such charge must be asked by the party who conceives himself aggrieved by the court’s rulings. These principles have been so often declared, that it is needless to cite authorities, other than those noted on the brief of counsel.
The judgment of the Circuit Courtis affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
74 Ala. 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/east-tenn-va-geo-railroad-v-clark-ala-1883.