Swafford v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Swafford v. State

153 So. 924, 26 Ala. App. 693

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 6, 1934

Docket8 Div. 840.

StatusPublished

This text of 153 So. 924 (Swafford 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

Swafford v. State, 153 So. 924, 26 Ala. App. 693 (Ala. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, Judge.

The trial was in all things regular, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict.

Motion for a new trial was made and overruled. The evidence offered on the motion for a new trial was not sufficient to warrant the trial court in setting aside the verdict. The action of the court in overruling the motion was free from error.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, Judge.

The trial was in all things regular, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict.

Motion for a new trial was made and overruled. The evidence offered on the motion for a new trial was not sufficient to warrant the trial court in setting aside the verdict. The action of the court in overruling the motion was free from error.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 So. 924, 26 Ala. App. 693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swafford-v-state-alactapp-1934.