Gholston Motor Co. v. Norman

Alabama Court of Appeals

Gholston Motor Co. v. Norman

137 So. 536, 24 Ala. App. 526, 1931 Ala. App. LEXIS 135

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 6, 1931

Docket4 Div. 791.

StatusPublished

This text of 137 So. 536 (Gholston Motor Co. v. Norman) 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

Gholston Motor Co. v. Norman, 137 So. 536, 24 Ala. App. 526, 1931 Ala. App. LEXIS 135 (Ala. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

Appeal by deferfdant in the court below from a judgment against it in favor of the plaintiff (appellee) for the amount of $118.42.

We quote, as a basis for our decision, the following excerpts from the learned trial judge’s oral charge to the jury trying the case, to wit: “Gentlemen, the plaintiff in this case insists that she is entitled to recover a certain sum by way of judgment against the Gholston Motor Company, for their failure to comply with an agreement which had to do with the sale and exchange of an automobile. Now * * * the burden * * * is upon her to reasonably satisfy the jury from all the evidence that her contention is true. * * * It so happens in this case that the parties to the controversy are the only witnesses in the case. * * * The defendant insists that the contract was not of that kind and character which the plaintiff undertakes to assert it was. * * * If the trade was completed, as the plaintiff undertakes to say in her testimony that it was, then that trade spoke the agreement of the two parties and became finally the memorial of what they did do; if their minds met, in the way which she says they did, and she has successfully established that fact by a reasonable preponderance of the testimony, why, she is entitled to a recovery ; if on the other hand, she has not successfully carried the burden at that point, she cannot recover. That’s the issue. * * * So, after all, it is a matter of fact.”

And otherwise, and in greater detail, the court in its said charge “boiled down” and made explicit the issue in the case, in a way fair to both parties, and satisfactory to their attorneys.

*527 There were no demurrers to the complaint; no requested written charges; in fact, no questions involved in the trial, of moment, save the single one, or collective one, dealt with by the trial court in its instructions to the jury.

If the letter offered in evidence by appellee, and admitted over appellant’s objection, be said to have been improperly admitted, still, after an examination of the entire cause, we are of the opinion that the error complained of has not probably injuriously affected substantial rights of the appellant. So we would not order a reversal of the judgment because of its admission. Supreme Court rule 45.

In ifone of the rulings presented to us for review do we find error of a reversible nature.

Hence the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

RICE, J.

Appeal by deferfdant in the court below from a judgment against it in favor of the plaintiff (appellee) for the amount of $118.42.

We quote, as a basis for our decision, the following excerpts from the learned trial judge’s oral charge to the jury trying the case, to wit: “Gentlemen, the plaintiff in this case insists that she is entitled to recover a certain sum by way of judgment against the Gholston Motor Company, for their failure to comply with an agreement which had to do with the sale and exchange of an automobile. Now * * * the burden * * * is upon her to reasonably satisfy the jury from all the evidence that her contention is true. * * * It so happens in this case that the parties to the controversy are the only witnesses in the case. * * * The defendant insists that the contract was not of that kind and character which the plaintiff undertakes to assert it was. * * * If the trade was completed, as the plaintiff undertakes to say in her testimony that it was, then that trade spoke the agreement of the two parties and became finally the memorial of what they did do; if their minds met, in the way which she says they did, and she has successfully established that fact by a reasonable preponderance of the testimony, why, she is entitled to a recovery ; if on the other hand, she has not successfully carried the burden at that point, she cannot recover. That’s the issue. * * * So, after all, it is a matter of fact.”

And otherwise, and in greater detail, the court in its said charge “boiled down” and made explicit the issue in the case, in a way fair to both parties, and satisfactory to their attorneys.

*527 There were no demurrers to the complaint; no requested written charges; in fact, no questions involved in the trial, of moment, save the single one, or collective one, dealt with by the trial court in its instructions to the jury.

If the letter offered in evidence by appellee, and admitted over appellant’s objection, be said to have been improperly admitted, still, after an examination of the entire cause, we are of the opinion that the error complained of has not probably injuriously affected substantial rights of the appellant. So we would not order a reversal of the judgment because of its admission. Supreme Court rule 45.

In ifone of the rulings presented to us for review do we find error of a reversible nature.

Hence the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 So. 536, 24 Ala. App. 526, 1931 Ala. App. LEXIS 135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gholston-motor-co-v-norman-alactapp-1931.