Stewart v. Guy

138 Ala. 176
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided November 15, 1902·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

DOWDELL, J.

The overruling of a motion for a new trial is the only matter assigned as error in the record. The bill of exceptions does not purport to set out all of the evidence had in the original trial, and in this state of the record it is impossible for this court to say whether the weight of the evidence was against, or in favor of, the verdict. The judgment of the court, therefore, on the motion relating to the evidence and verdict will not be disturbed.

To the charge given ex mero motu by the court, it does not appear that any exception was reserved on the trial. The failure to reserve an exception to the charge of the court on the trial, cannot be cured by a motion for a new trial. — Tobias & Co. v. Triest & Co., 103 Ala. 664.

We find no reversible error in the record, and the judgment will be affirmed.

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

Stewart v. Guy, 138 Ala. 176 (Ala. 1902).

138 Ala. 176 (Stewart v. Guy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commercial National Bank of Anniston v. Surrett
192 So. 2d 448 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1966)
Blount County v. McPherson
116 So. 2d 746 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1959)
McDuffie & Sons v. Weeks
63 So. 739 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1913)
Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Ashley
49 So. 388 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1909)
Smith v. Woolf
49 So. 395 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1909)
Geter v. Central Coal Co.
43 So. 367 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1907)