Van Leer v. Helms

Supreme Court of Alabama

Van Leer v. Helms

66 So. 2d 783, 259 Ala. 499, 1953 Ala. LEXIS 339

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 30, 1953

Docket4 Div. 658

StatusPublished

This text of 66 So. 2d 783 (Van Leer v. Helms) 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

Van Leer v. Helms, 66 So. 2d 783, 259 Ala. 499, 1953 Ala. LEXIS 339 (Ala. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

GOODWYN, Justice.

Appellant brought suit in detinue against appellee to recover a 1941 Cadillac automobile. On motion of plaintiff, the cause was transferred to the equity side of the court. All of the testimony was taken before a commissioner.

As stated in appellant’s brief, “the issue is one of fact.” This requires an examination by us of the evidence. In considering the evidence in this case, we are not aided by any presumption in favor of the trial court’s decision on the facts, since no part of the testimony was taken orally before the trial court. Wheeler v. Wheeler, 249 Ala. 119, 121, 29 So.2d 881; Federal Land Bank of New Orleans v. Sutton, 248 Ala. 529, 531, 28 So.2d 553. However, after careful study and consideration of the evidence, we are of the opinion that the decree of the trial court should not be disturbed.

For the satisfaction of counsel and the parties, we should like to analyze and discuss the evidence in detail, but since the issue raised by the appeal presents a question of fact only, we will follow this court’s established policy in such cases of simply announcing our conclusion. Moreover, a discussion of the evidence would not add anything to the established law, nor serve any useful purpose as a precedent. Code 1940, [500]*500Tit. 13, § 66; Wheeler v. Wheeler, supra; Caples v. Young, 206 Ala. 282, 284, 89 So. 460.

Affirmed.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and MERRILL, JJ., concur.

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

GOODWYN, Justice.

Appellant brought suit in detinue against appellee to recover a 1941 Cadillac automobile. On motion of plaintiff, the cause was transferred to the equity side of the court. All of the testimony was taken before a commissioner.

As stated in appellant’s brief, “the issue is one of fact.” This requires an examination by us of the evidence. In considering the evidence in this case, we are not aided by any presumption in favor of the trial court’s decision on the facts, since no part of the testimony was taken orally before the trial court. Wheeler v. Wheeler, 249 Ala. 119, 121, 29 So.2d 881; Federal Land Bank of New Orleans v. Sutton, 248 Ala. 529, 531, 28 So.2d 553. However, after careful study and consideration of the evidence, we are of the opinion that the decree of the trial court should not be disturbed.

For the satisfaction of counsel and the parties, we should like to analyze and discuss the evidence in detail, but since the issue raised by the appeal presents a question of fact only, we will follow this court’s established policy in such cases of simply announcing our conclusion. Moreover, a discussion of the evidence would not add anything to the established law, nor serve any useful purpose as a precedent. Code 1940, [500]*500Tit. 13, § 66; Wheeler v. Wheeler, supra; Caples v. Young, 206 Ala. 282, 284, 89 So. 460.

Affirmed.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and MERRILL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 So. 2d 783, 259 Ala. 499, 1953 Ala. LEXIS 339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-leer-v-helms-ala-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack