Grant v. Henderson-Pierce Motor Co.

Alabama Court of Appeals

Grant v. Henderson-Pierce Motor Co.

107 So. 724, 21 Ala. App. 285, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 75

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 16, 1926

Docket4 Div. 183.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 107 So. 724 (Grant v. Henderson-Pierce Motor Co.) 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

Grant v. Henderson-Pierce Motor Co., 107 So. 724, 21 Ala. App. 285, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 75 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

The trial was had before the judge without the intervention of a jury, and the evidence was taken ore tenus. Long after the adoption of Acts 1915; p. 824 (now incorporated in section 9498 of the Code of 1923), the Supreme Court and this court have held:

“When a civil case is tried by the court without a jury, the conclusion of the trial judge upon the finding of fact from the evidence given ore tenus has the effect of a verdict of a jury, and will not be set aside, unless that judgment is contrary to the great weight of the evidence; that is, plainly erroneous or manifestly wrong.” Halle v. Brooks, 96 So. 341, 209 Ala. 486.

We would not be authorized to disturb the judgment appealed from.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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