Thomas v. Johnson

94 So. 922, 208 Ala. 701
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided November 2, 1922·No. 4 Div. 7.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

SOMERVILLE, J.

The testimony was sufficient, if believed by the trial court, to sustain (he judgment for plaintiff. Newly discovered evidence will not warrant the granting of a new trial, in the absence of any explanation by appellant of his failure to produce it on the trial, or of any showing whatever of diligence in the premises. W. Va. Land Co. v. May, 166 Ala. 127, 52 South. 315; McLeod v. Shelly, etc., Co., 108 Ala. 81, 19 South. 326. Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLELLAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

Thomas v. Johnson, 94 So. 922, 208 Ala. 701 (Ala. 1922).

94 So. 922 (Thomas v. Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gilbreath v. Bain
101 So. 762 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1924)