Wadsworth v. Williams

101 Ala. 264
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedNovember 15, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 101 Ala. 264 (Wadsworth v. Williams) 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
Wadsworth v. Williams, 101 Ala. 264 (Ala. 1893).

Opinion

COLEMAN, J.

This was an action to recover damages for trespass upon lands. The assignments of error are. based upon the refusal of the court to give two several charges requested in writing by the defendant. No briefs have been filed by either party. ■

The bill of exceptions is very meagre, and does not purport to set out all the evidence. When this is the case this court will presume there was evidence introduced on the trial which justified the action of the court. Evansville, Paducah & Tennessee River Packet Company v. Slater, ante, p. 245, and authorities collected.

The first charge requested directed the attention of the jury to a single fact. There may have been other facts in evidence, controlling or qualifying the fact thus singled out. Moreover, it is not error to refuse a charge which emphasizes and gives undue prominence to any single fact. Such charges are calculated to mislead the jury, and generally are regarded as argumentative, and for this reason may be properly refused. — Bell v. Kendall & Co., 93 Ala. 489; A. G. S. R. R. Co. v. Sellers, Ib. 9 ; Jackson v. Robinson, Ib. 157; Eastis v. Montgomery, Ib. 293.

Prom all that appears in the record the second charge refused was abstract. — Bostic v. The State, 94 Ala. 45; Smith v. Collins, Ib. 394.

There is no error in the record.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Sovereign Camp, W. O. W. v. Turner
191 So. 473 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1939)
City of Birmingham v. Andrews
172 So. 681 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1937)
Thorne v. State
105 So. 709 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1925)
Parker v. White
104 So. 843 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1925)
Bissell Motor Co. v. Johnson
97 So. 49 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1923)
First Nat. Bank of Gadsden v. Meeks
94 So. 527 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1922)
Fuller v. Fair
91 So. 591 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1921)
Johnston Bros. Co. v. Washburn
77 So. 461 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1917)
Jones v. White
66 So. 605 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1914)
Southern Hardware & Sup. Co. v. Standard Equip. Co.
51 So. 789 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1910)
Maddox v. Dunklin
50 So. 277 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1909)
Anniston Mfg. Co. v. So. R'y Co.
40 So. 965 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1906)
Mobile & Kansas City Railroad v. Owen
121 Ala. 505 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1898)
McCutchen v. Loggins
109 Ala. 457 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
101 Ala. 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wadsworth-v-williams-ala-1893.