Montgomery Traction Co. v. Haygood

Supreme Court of Alabama

Montgomery Traction Co. v. Haygood

44 So. 560, 152 Ala. 142, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 45

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJuly 2, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 44 So. 560 (Montgomery Traction Co. v. Haygood) 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

Montgomery Traction Co. v. Haygood, 44 So. 560, 152 Ala. 142, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 45 (Ala. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

TYSON, C. J.

Tbe bill of exceptions can only be considered for the purpose of reviewing the motion for a new trial. — Montgomery Traction Co. v. Bozeman, 152 Ala. 145, 44 South. 599. The assignments of error are two. The first' is predicated upon the refusal of the court to give a written charge requested by the defendant. The ruling of the court in this respect, not being one of the grounds of the motion for a new trial, cannot be considered. — Geter v. Central Coal Co., 149 Ala. 578, 43 South. 367.

The second assignment is based on the refusal of the court to grant a new trial. While this motion contains a number of grounds, only one is insisted on; and that is: The verdict was contrary to the evidence. There was a conflict in the testimony, and the credibility of the witnesses was for the determination of the jury. The trial judge also heard the witnesses’ testimony and saw their demeanor on the stand, and therefore, to this extent, had a better opportunity than we have to judge of their credibility. He denied the motion, thereby strengthening the presumption in favor of the correctness of the verdict. After a review of the evidence we are unwilling to affirm that his ruling was erroneous.

Affirmed.

Haralson, Anderson, and Denson, JJ., concur.

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

TYSON, C. J.

Tbe bill of exceptions can only be considered for the purpose of reviewing the motion for a new trial. — Montgomery Traction Co. v. Bozeman, 152 Ala. 145, 44 South. 599. The assignments of error are two. The first' is predicated upon the refusal of the court to give a written charge requested by the defendant. The ruling of the court in this respect, not being one of the grounds of the motion for a new trial, cannot be considered. — Geter v. Central Coal Co., 149 Ala. 578, 43 South. 367.

The second assignment is based on the refusal of the court to grant a new trial. While this motion contains a number of grounds, only one is insisted on; and that is: The verdict was contrary to the evidence. There was a conflict in the testimony, and the credibility of the witnesses was for the determination of the jury. The trial judge also heard the witnesses’ testimony and saw their demeanor on the stand, and therefore, to this extent, had a better opportunity than we have to judge of their credibility. He denied the motion, thereby strengthening the presumption in favor of the correctness of the verdict. After a review of the evidence we are unwilling to affirm that his ruling was erroneous.

Affirmed.

Haralson, Anderson, and Denson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 So. 560, 152 Ala. 142, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montgomery-traction-co-v-haygood-ala-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack