Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Solomon

127 Ala. 189
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided November 15, 1899·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

TYSON, J.

The re'cord shows that this case originated in a justice court, and was appealed to the circuit court. The amount involved being less than twenty dollars, it was there tried by the judge without the intervention of a jury. — Code, § 190.

The only exception shown to have been reserved was one to the judgment rendered. “The case should be strong and clear, to justify a reversal of the court’s finding on facts in a case like this. * * * His finding stands as a substitution for the verdict of a jury and should not be disturbed, except on the principles which govern courts at nisi prims, in setting aside verdicts of juries and granting new trials.” — Dargan v. Harris, 68 Ala. 144. We cannot hold that the facts recited in the bill of exceptions and the inferences deducidle therefrom are palpably insufficient to support the judgment. We must., tlierefore, decline to disturb it.

Affirmed.

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

Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Solomon, 127 Ala. 189 (Ala. 1899).

127 Ala. 189 (Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Solomon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Union Mut. Aid Ass'n v. Carroway
78 So. 792 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1918)
Danal v. State
71 So. 976 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1916)
Glenn Refining Co. v. Webster
59 So. 717 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1912)
Robinson v. Cowan
47 So. 1018 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1908)
Shafer & Co. v. Hausman
139 Ala. 237 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1903)