Morris v. State

137 So. 923, 24 Ala. App. 668
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 24, 1931
Docket4 Div. 825.
StatusPublished

This text of 137 So. 923 (Morris v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Morris v. State, 137 So. 923, 24 Ala. App. 668 (Ala. Ct. App. 1931).

Opinion

RICE, J.

Nothing of value would be added to the body of our law by any discussion of the testimony in this ease, seeking to demonstrate just why we have reached the conclusion that appellant’s motion for a new trial should have- been granted.

But, suffice to say, we have read and carefully considered, the entire evidence, sitting en banc.

We have no difficulty in deciding that it was entirely insufficient to support the verdict of the jury, and the judgment rendered thereon, under the well-known rule prevailing.

For the error in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded. See Mathews v. State, 21 Ala. App. 231, 106 So. 889.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Mathews v. State
106 So. 889 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
137 So. 923, 24 Ala. App. 668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-state-alactapp-1931.