Cobb v. Hand-Cobb

9 Citing cases

  1. Little v. Peevy

    238 Ala. 106 (Ala. 1939)   Cited 32 times

    Defendant should be denied a new trial because his motion does not specifically point out wherein the verdict of the jury and judgment of the court pronounced thereon are contrary to law. 48 C.J. 317, 318, §§ 310, 311; Winter v. Judkins, 106 Ala. 259, 17 So. 627; Ard v. Crittenden, Ala.Sup., 39 So. 675; Alabama M. R. Co. v. Brown, 129 Ala. 282, 29 So. 548; Nashville, C. St. L. R. Co. v. Crosby, 194 Ala. 338, 70 So. 7; Cobb v. Hand, 12 Ala. App. 461, 68 So. 541; North Carolina Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Carter, 232 Ala. 29, 166 So. 688. Defendant's ignorance of date of trial, or of order of court as to a definite time for disposition of case is not a proper ground for new trial where defendant's counsel knew the date and were informed by the court as to the time set for disposition of the case.

  2. Southern Electric Generating Co. v. Howard

    156 So. 2d 359 (Ala. 1963)   Cited 13 times
    In Southern Electric Generating Co. v. Howard, 275 Ala. 498, 156 So.2d 359, the testimony as to damages ranged from a low of $175 to a high of $10,000.

    To render a verdict objectionable and subject to vacation on the ground that it was a quotient verdict, it devolves upon the assailant of the verdict to show by competent evidence that the jurors in advance agreed to be bound by a particular mode adopted of arriving at the verdict. Birmingham R., Light Power Co. v. Moore, 148 Ala. 115, 42 So. 1024; Bank of Tallassee v. Elmore Fertilizer Co., 16 Ala. App. 465, 78 So. 648; Cobb v. Hand, 12 Ala. App. 461, 68 So. 541. A damage verdict in condemnation proceedings and a ruling of the trial court in failing to set it aside for excessiveness or inadequacy will not be overturned unless the amount is so large or so small as to carry internal evidence of intemperance in the minds of the jury. Thornton v. City of Birmingham, 250 Ala. 651, 35 So.2d 545, 7 A.L.R.2d 773; Morgan County v. Hill, 257 Ala. 658, 60 So.2d 838; Tallapoosa County v. Holley, 268 Ala. 67, 104 So.2d 834; 30 C.J.S. Eminent Domain, § 364; Airheart v. Green, 267 Ala. 689, 104 So.2d 687; Alabama Gas Co. v. Jones, 244 Ala. 413, 13 So.2d 873. It is elementary law that the inquiry as to an expert's competency is a preliminary question and is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, whose decision on the matter will not be disturbed on appeal except for palpable abuse. Kirby v. Brooks, 215 Ala. 507, 111 So. 235; Johnson v. Battles, 255 Ala. 624, 52 So.2d 702; Alabama Power Co. v. Williams, 222 Ala. 75, 130 So. 788; Alabama Conso

  3. Alabama Farm Bureau Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Dalrymple

    270 Ala. 119 (Ala. 1959)   Cited 26 times

    Southern Ry. Co. v. Hill, Ala., 39 So. 987; Cleveland Laundry Machinery Mfg. Co. v. Southern Steam C. Cl. Co., 204 Ala. 297, 85 So. 535; Blankenship v. Van Hooser, 221 Ala. 542, 130 So. 63; 18A Ala.Dig., Trial, 139(1). Where a reasonable inference exists from the testimony or where different constructions or inferences may be placed on testimony, question for the jury is presented. Hoover v. Miller, 198 Ala. 499, 73 So. 817; 18A Ala.Dig., Trial 142. Bias, passion or prejudice on the part of the jury is not presumed. Comer v. Jackson, 50 Ala. 384; Cobb v. Hand, 12 Ala. App. 461, 68 So. 541; McGill v. Alabama Fuel Iron Co., 221 Ala. 614, 130 So. 379. STAKELY, Justice.

  4. Bates v. Rentz

    81 So. 2d 349 (Ala. 1955)   Cited 18 times
    In Bates v. Rentz, 262 Ala. 681, 81 So.2d 349, the judgment was dated October 14, 1954, and the appeal was taken on January 15, 1955.

    Assignments of error not argued are treated as waived. Morgan County v. Hill, supra; Reese v. Mackentepe, 224 Ala. 372, 140 So. 550; Cobb v. Hand, 12 Ala. App. 461, 68 So. 541. No reversible error has been shown and the judgment is affirmed.

  5. Dabbs v. Letson

    210 Ala. 306 (Ala. 1923)   Cited 10 times

    The mere general statement that the court erred in overruling respondent's exceptions 1 to 46 to the testimony is not a sufficient insistence, as required by Supreme Court rule 1, Code 1907, p. 1506. Paterson-Edey Lbr. Co. v. Firm Lbr. Co., 17 Ala. App. 262, 84 So. 314; Cobb v. Hand, 12 Ala. App. 461, 68 So. 541; L. N. v. Holland, 173 Ala. 675, 55 So. 1001; Kinnon v. L. N., 187 Ala. 480, 65 So. 397; Carney v. M. C. Kiser Co., 200 Ala. 527, 76 So. 853. The contract in this case is sufficient in every particular.

  6. Leith v. State

    206 Ala. 439 (Ala. 1921)   Cited 105 times
    In Leith v. State, 206 Ala. 439, 90 So. 687 (1921), a prior order entered in the case, containing statements prejudicial to a defendant who had been accused of murder, was (as in the present case) inadvertently, and without the knowledge of the court or counsel, sent with the jury to the jury room.

    This was in consonance with the rule that what a juror thought or why he agreed to a verdict or the discussions or deliberations of jurors may not be received to impeach a verdict. B. R., L. P. Co. v. Clemons, 142 Ala. 160, 37 So. 925; Van Tinder v. B. R., L. P. Co., supra, 202 Ala. 476, 80 So. 858; City of Eufaula v. Speight, supra; Harper v. State, 16 Ala. App. 153, 75 So. 829; Cobb v. Hand, 12 Ala. App. 461, 68 So. 541. It has not been held incompetent to show by members of the jury whether they did read or were influenced by a paper or other extraneous fact that was improperly before them, and not introduced on the trial.

  7. Southern Ry. Co. v. Milan

    199 So. 708 (Ala. Crim. App. 1941)   Cited 2 times

    There was no error in giving plaintiff's charge 3, explanatory of defendant's given charge G. Birmingham S. R. Co. v. Harrison, 203 Ala. 284, 82 So. 534. The evidence is insufficient to show a quotient verdict. The motion for a new trial was properly overruled. City of Eufaula v. Speight, 121 Ala. 613, 615, 25 So. 1009; Birmingham R., L. P. Co. v. Clemons, 142 Ala. 160, 37 So. 925; Cobb v. Hand, 12 Ala. App. 461, 68 So. 541; Birmingham R., L. P. Co. v. Moore, 148 Ala. 115, 42 So. 1024. The case was properly submitted to the jury on the testimony, and the insistence of appellant that the verdict is against the preponderance of the evidence is without merit. RICE, Judge.

  8. Mangino v. Todd

    98 So. 323 (Ala. Crim. App. 1923)   Cited 24 times

    J. Foy Guin, of Russellville, for appellant. The first five grounds of the motion for new trial are general, fail to point out in what particular the jury erred, and cannot be considered. N.C. St. L. v. Crosby, 194 Ala. 338, 70 So. 7; Cobb v. Hand, 12 Ala. App. 461, 68 So. 541; Ard v. Crittenden (Ala. Sup.) 39 So. 675; Parker v. Bond, 121 Ala. 529, 25 So. 898. A conflict in the testimony presents a jury question, and does not authorize the court to interfere with the verdict. Ala. S. W. Co. v. Thompson, 166 Ala. 460, 52 So. 75. A witness cannot be impeached upon an immaterial or collateral matter.

  9. Kitchens v. Mann

    80 So. 173 (Ala. Crim. App. 1918)   Cited 5 times

    Where this is the case, the trial court will not be put in error for its action in overruling a motion for a new trial based upon the ground that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the evidence. Denson v. Stanley, 84 South. ___; Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630, 9 So. 738; Cobb v. Hand, 12 Ala. App. 463, 68 So. 541. It is true that a warehouseman is liable, in a proper suit, for the delivery of goods to the wrong person.