Southern Railway Co. v. Cobb

Alabama Court of Appeals

Southern Railway Co. v. Cobb

60 So. 426, 6 Ala. App. 459, 1912 Ala. App. LEXIS 95

DecidedNovember 21, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 60 So. 426 (Southern Railway Co. v. Cobb) 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

Southern Railway Co. v. Cobb, 60 So. 426, 6 Ala. App. 459, 1912 Ala. App. LEXIS 95 (Ala. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PELHAM, J.

After what has been said by the Supreme Court in the opinion rendered in the case of So. Ry. Co. v. Penney, 164 Ala. 188, 51 South. 392, the question of the burden of proof as applicable to this class of cases is foreclosed of any discussion, as this court is required by statute to follow the decisions of that court. Charge A, requested by the defendant, placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff, was therefore properly refused.

The evidence, or its tendencies and the inferences it affords, is in conflict on the plaintiff’s right to recover, and the weight and credibility of the testimony is for the jury, who saw the witnesses and heard them testify. An examination of the evidence does not disclose a case authorizing us, under the well-known rule for reviewing such matters, to say that the court was in error in refusing the appellant’s motion for a new trial.

Affirmed.

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

PELHAM, J.

After what has been said by the Supreme Court in the opinion rendered in the case of So. Ry. Co. v. Penney, 164 Ala. 188, 51 South. 392, the question of the burden of proof as applicable to this class of cases is foreclosed of any discussion, as this court is required by statute to follow the decisions of that court. Charge A, requested by the defendant, placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff, was therefore properly refused.

The evidence, or its tendencies and the inferences it affords, is in conflict on the plaintiff’s right to recover, and the weight and credibility of the testimony is for the jury, who saw the witnesses and heard them testify. An examination of the evidence does not disclose a case authorizing us, under the well-known rule for reviewing such matters, to say that the court was in error in refusing the appellant’s motion for a new trial.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 So. 426, 6 Ala. App. 459, 1912 Ala. App. LEXIS 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-railway-co-v-cobb-alactapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack