Jeffries v. Pitts

Supreme Court of Alabama

Jeffries v. Pitts

75 So. 959, 200 Ala. 201, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 377

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMay 17, 1917

Docket6 Div. 539.

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 75 So. 959 (Jeffries v. Pitts) 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

Jeffries v. Pitts, 75 So. 959, 200 Ala. 201, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 377 (Ala. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

ANDERSON, C. J.

[1], The trial court did not err in declining to let the plaintiff prove the custom of the Southern Railroad as to not employing minors, as that related to the act or conduct of one not a party to the cause or the transaction involved. Moreover, the plaintiff got the full benefit of the statement of the defendant as to his age when going into the employment of the Southern Railroad.

[2] Charge 2 (which will be found at the top of page 20 of the record, and which will be set out by the reporter) given for the defendant submitted a question of law to the jury and was improperly given. Anniston Land Co. v. Edmondson, 145 Ala. 557, 40 South. 505; Barlow v. Hamilton, 151 Ala. 634, 44 South. 657. Nor do we think that the charge was so explained or neutralized either by given charges or the oral charge of the court as to prevent the giving of same from being reversible error under the act of 1915, p. 815.

The only other assignment of error urged in brief of appellant’s counsel is No. 7, which sets out a charge purporting to have been requested by and refused the appellant, the plaintiff, and referring to page 20 of the record. We do not find that such a charge was requested by or refused the plaintiff, as the record recites that this charge was requested by and refused the defendant.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

MAYFIELD, SOMERVILLE, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

ANDERSON, C. J.

[1], The trial court did not err in declining to let the plaintiff prove the custom of the Southern Railroad as to not employing minors, as that related to the act or conduct of one not a party to the cause or the transaction involved. Moreover, the plaintiff got the full benefit of the statement of the defendant as to his age when going into the employment of the Southern Railroad.

[2] Charge 2 (which will be found at the top of page 20 of the record, and which will be set out by the reporter) given for the defendant submitted a question of law to the jury and was improperly given. Anniston Land Co. v. Edmondson, 145 Ala. 557, 40 South. 505; Barlow v. Hamilton, 151 Ala. 634, 44 South. 657. Nor do we think that the charge was so explained or neutralized either by given charges or the oral charge of the court as to prevent the giving of same from being reversible error under the act of 1915, p. 815.

The only other assignment of error urged in brief of appellant’s counsel is No. 7, which sets out a charge purporting to have been requested by and refused the appellant, the plaintiff, and referring to page 20 of the record. We do not find that such a charge was requested by or refused the plaintiff, as the record recites that this charge was requested by and refused the defendant.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

MAYFIELD, SOMERVILLE, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 So. 959, 200 Ala. 201, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jeffries-v-pitts-ala-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack