General Motors Truck Co. v. Cruse-Crawford Mfg. Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

General Motors Truck Co. v. Cruse-Crawford Mfg. Co.

131 So. 434, 222 Ala. 164, 1930 Ala. LEXIS 504

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedDecember 18, 1930

Docket6 Div. 612.

StatusPublished

This text of 131 So. 434 (General Motors Truck Co. v. Cruse-Crawford Mfg. Co.) 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

General Motors Truck Co. v. Cruse-Crawford Mfg. Co., 131 So. 434, 222 Ala. 164, 1930 Ala. LEXIS 504 (Ala. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

ANDERSON, C. J.

The only point made against the ruling of the trial court relates to an exception to the oral charge. We do not think that the exception reserved is so specific or definite as to meet the requirement of the rule, nor is it in substance the same as either of the excerpts selected and set out in appellant’s brief. Indeed, counsel seem uncertain as to this, and attempt to apply the exception to two different portions of the oral charge, and it is sufficient to say that the exception is not substantially the same as either of the excerpts.

For instance, each of the excerpts from the oral charge hypothesizes an acceptance of the body, while the exception is based on a failure to object, and which distinction may have been a material factor. Besides, there are other variances between the exception and the oral charge.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.

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

ANDERSON, C. J.

The only point made against the ruling of the trial court relates to an exception to the oral charge. We do not think that the exception reserved is so specific or definite as to meet the requirement of the rule, nor is it in substance the same as either of the excerpts selected and set out in appellant’s brief. Indeed, counsel seem uncertain as to this, and attempt to apply the exception to two different portions of the oral charge, and it is sufficient to say that the exception is not substantially the same as either of the excerpts.

For instance, each of the excerpts from the oral charge hypothesizes an acceptance of the body, while the exception is based on a failure to object, and which distinction may have been a material factor. Besides, there are other variances between the exception and the oral charge.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 So. 434, 222 Ala. 164, 1930 Ala. LEXIS 504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/general-motors-truck-co-v-cruse-crawford-mfg-co-ala-1930.