Southern Railway Co. v. Carolina-Portland Cement Co.

55 So. 134, 171 Ala. 427, 1911 Ala. LEXIS 120
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedFebruary 2, 1911
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 55 So. 134 (Southern Railway Co. v. Carolina-Portland Cement Co.) 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
Southern Railway Co. v. Carolina-Portland Cement Co., 55 So. 134, 171 Ala. 427, 1911 Ala. LEXIS 120 (Ala. 1911).

Opinion

McCLELLAN, J.

This action is for the value of a car of cement consigned by the appellee to the Southern Improvement Company, at Talladega, Ala., and delivered by the earner, appellant, to W. S. White & Co. at that point. The defense below was that one Timmons, as appellee’s authorized representative, diverted the delivery of the consignment from the consignee to W. S'. White & Co., another customer of the appellee. The verdict was in favor of the appellee. The motion for new trial was overruled. This action is the basis of the only errors assigned.

Taking full account of the rule announced in Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630, 9 South. 738, firmly accepted for the guidance of this court in reviewing the action of trial courts in overruling motions for new trial, we feel constrained to hold in this case, after a careful considera[429]*429tion of the whole evidence presented in the bill of exceptions, that the new trial should have been granted, upon the ground that the weight of the evidence against the verdict is so great as to convince this court that “the substantial ends of justice require the examination of the facts by another jury.” A discussion of the evidence is purposely avoided, in view of the new trial to be had.

T'he motion for new trial is granted. The canse is remanded.

Reversed, rendered, and remanded.

D'owdell, G. J., and Simpson and Mayfield, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Gordon v. State
132 So. 914 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1931)
Culbert v. State
129 So. 315 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1930)
Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway v. Crosby
70 So. 7 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 So. 134, 171 Ala. 427, 1911 Ala. LEXIS 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-railway-co-v-carolina-portland-cement-co-ala-1911.