Thomas v. Johnson

Supreme Court of Alabama

Thomas v. Johnson

94 So. 922, 208 Ala. 701

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedNovember 2, 1922

Docket4 Div. 7.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 94 So. 922 (Thomas v. Johnson) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 So. 922, 208 Ala. 701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-johnson-ala-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack