Wilkinson v. Flowers

Alabama Court of Appeals

Wilkinson v. Flowers

77 So. 982, 16 Ala. App. 370, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 49

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 5, 1918

Docket4 Div. 514.

StatusPublished

This text of 77 So. 982 (Wilkinson v. Flowers) 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

Wilkinson v. Flowers, 77 So. 982, 16 Ala. App. 370, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 49 (Ala. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, P. J.

[1] The assignments of error present for consideration only questions of fact — whether or not the defendant was guilty of negligence proximately resulting in the injury complained of, and, if so, whether plaintiff’s agent or servant was guilty of such contributory negligence as would bar a recovery. On these issues the testimony was taken ore tenus, and that offered by the plaintiff is in sharp conflict with the testimony offered by the defendant. The trial court was in a better position to judge of the credibility of the witnesses than we are, and when his findings are accorded tho weight of a verdict of a jury, we are unable to say that his conclusions are erroneous. Cofield v. McGraw & Garner, ante, p. 369, 77 South. 981; Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403, 72 South. 52; Hatfield v. Riley, 199 Ala. 388, 74 South. 380; Veid v. Roberts, 200 Ala. 576, 76 South. 934.

[2] In our opinion a discussion of the evidence would serve no useful purpose, and by *371 the provisions of section 5999 of the Code, as amended by Acts 1915, p. 595, we are relieved of this burden.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BROWN, P. J.

[1] The assignments of error present for consideration only questions of fact — whether or not the defendant was guilty of negligence proximately resulting in the injury complained of, and, if so, whether plaintiff’s agent or servant was guilty of such contributory negligence as would bar a recovery. On these issues the testimony was taken ore tenus, and that offered by the plaintiff is in sharp conflict with the testimony offered by the defendant. The trial court was in a better position to judge of the credibility of the witnesses than we are, and when his findings are accorded tho weight of a verdict of a jury, we are unable to say that his conclusions are erroneous. Cofield v. McGraw & Garner, ante, p. 369, 77 South. 981; Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403, 72 South. 52; Hatfield v. Riley, 199 Ala. 388, 74 South. 380; Veid v. Roberts, 200 Ala. 576, 76 South. 934.

[2] In our opinion a discussion of the evidence would serve no useful purpose, and by *371 the provisions of section 5999 of the Code, as amended by Acts 1915, p. 595, we are relieved of this burden.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 So. 982, 16 Ala. App. 370, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilkinson-v-flowers-alactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack