Mobile, Jackson & Kansas City Railroad v. Riley

119 Ala. 260
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJuly 1, 1898
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 119 Ala. 260 (Mobile, Jackson & Kansas City Railroad v. Riley) 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
Mobile, Jackson & Kansas City Railroad v. Riley, 119 Ala. 260 (Ala. 1898).

Opinion

COLEMAN, J.

The appeal is prosecuted from a judgment rendered in condemnation proceedings, instituted by appellant to secure a right of Avay across the lands of appellee. The only assignments of error relate to the admission of the testimony of one OutlaAV, and one Bennett, and the instruction to the jury.

An examination of the record shows that the objections of appellant to the testimony were general, specifying no grounds whatever. If the real ground of objection Avas, that a sufficient predicate had not been laid for the introduction of expert testimony, and the ground had been stated, it may be, that the necessary preparatory proof AAmuld have been made, if, in fact, it was not [262]*262made. However, from aught that the record shows, this court does not know, nor could the trial court have known, the specific ground upon which the objection was based. — Rule of Practice, 90 Ala.

The rule excluding “opinions” as evidence is not applied so strictly to questions of “values” and “estimates” as to many other subjects. — E. T., V. & G. R. R. Co. v. Watson, 90 Ala. 41; Burks v. Hubbard, 69 Ala. 379.

The charge given to which an exception was reserved was authorized by the decisions of this court. — Hooper v. Savannah R. R. Co., 69 Ala. 529.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Middleton v. St. Louis S. F. R. Co.
153 So. 256 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1934)
Rudder v. Limestone County
125 So. 670 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1929)
Atlanta & St. A. B. Ry. Co. v. Knight
100 So. 233 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1924)
Salt Lake Inv. Co. v. Oregon Short Line R.
148 P. 439 (Utah Supreme Court, 1914)
Alabama Central Railroad v. Musgrove
53 So. 1009 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1910)
Bufford v. Little
48 So. 697 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1909)
Jackson Lumber Co. v. Cunningham
141 Ala. 206 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
119 Ala. 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mobile-jackson-kansas-city-railroad-v-riley-ala-1898.