Smith v. Webb

Alabama Court of Appeals

Smith v. Webb

82 So. 638, 17 Ala. App. 148, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 159

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 3, 1919

Docket8 Div. 566.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 82 So. 638 (Smith v. Webb) 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

Smith v. Webb, 82 So. 638, 17 Ala. App. 148, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 159 (Ala. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, J.

Appellee brought suit against appellant for damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of the negligence of the appellant in allowing a team,, without a .driver, to go upon a bridge on a public highway, and causing appellee, who was riding a mule, to be thrown from the bridge.

The complaint contained several counts, and several special pleas were interposed by the appellant. The court sustained demurrers to special pleas numbered 2, 4, 5, and 6, and overruled the demurrers to special pleas 3, 7, and 8. The case was tried by the court without,# jury, and judgment rendered in favor of appellee, plaintiff in the court below.

The assignments of error are based upon the action of the court in sustaining demurrers to special pleas 2, 4, 5, and 6, and the rendition of judgment against appellant.

[1] The only insistence in brief of appellant upon assignments of error in sustaining demurrers to special pleas 2, 4, 5, and 6, is in the following language:

“We submit that the court erred in sustaining the demurrers to pleas 2, 4, 5, and 6.” .

This is not a sufficient insistence upon these assignments of error. Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Quinton, 194 Ala. 126, 69 South. 604; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Benson, 159 Ala. 254, 48 South. 712, and therefore assignments of error 1, 2, 3, and 4 must be treated as having been waived. Tutwiler v. Enslen, 129 Ala. 347, 30 South. 600; 5 Mayf. Dig. p. 32, § 32.

[2] However, under special pleas 3, 7, and 8, to which demurrers were overruled, the appellant had the benefit of all the defenses raised in special pleas 2, 4, 5, and 6, and, even if there had been error in sustaining the demurrers, it would have been error without injury to appellant.

' We have examined the record carefully, and are of the opinion that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the judgment rendered by the court.

There being no error in the record, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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