McCrary v. Brawley & Yarbrough Bros.

Supreme Court of Alabama

McCrary v. Brawley & Yarbrough Bros.

43 So. 787, 150 Ala. 662, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 425

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMay 6, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 43 So. 787 (McCrary v. Brawley & Yarbrough Bros.) 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

McCrary v. Brawley & Yarbrough Bros., 43 So. 787, 150 Ala. 662, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 425 (Ala. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

DOWDELL, J.

We were at first of the opinion that the evidence plainly and palpably supported the judgment of the court on the trial, and that under the rule laid down in Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630, 9 South. 738, the court erred in granting a neAV trial. A reconsideration of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the eAddence was not Avithout conflict, and, this being true, we cannot say that the evidence “plainly and palpably'’ supported the verdict, or, rather, the judgment, as the case was tried by the court without a jury. The witnesses testified orally before the court, and what was said in Karter v. Peck & Bro., 121 Ala. 636, 25 South. 1012, with respect to this, is applicable here.

The conclusion reached renders it unnecessary to discuss the question of newly discovered evidence. The judgment appealed from will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Tyson, C. J., and Anderson and McClellan, JJ., concur.

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

DOWDELL, J.

We were at first of the opinion that the evidence plainly and palpably supported the judgment of the court on the trial, and that under the rule laid down in Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630, 9 South. 738, the court erred in granting a neAV trial. A reconsideration of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the eAddence was not Avithout conflict, and, this being true, we cannot say that the evidence “plainly and palpably'’ supported the verdict, or, rather, the judgment, as the case was tried by the court without a jury. The witnesses testified orally before the court, and what was said in Karter v. Peck & Bro., 121 Ala. 636, 25 South. 1012, with respect to this, is applicable here.

The conclusion reached renders it unnecessary to discuss the question of newly discovered evidence. The judgment appealed from will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Tyson, C. J., and Anderson and McClellan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 So. 787, 150 Ala. 662, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccrary-v-brawley-yarbrough-bros-ala-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack