Gulf States Steel Co. v. Comstock

9 Citing cases

  1. Ridout's-Brown Service, Inc. v. Holloway

    397 So. 2d 125 (Ala. 1981)   Cited 39 times
    In Rideouts Brown Service, Inc. v. Holloway, 397 So.2d 125, 127 (Ala. 1981), we said that for punitive damages to be effective the amount of damages "ought to be large enough to hurt.

    We recognize that, pursuant to Code 1975, § 12-22-71, where the only ground of reversal is the excessiveness of damages, the appellate court has the power to determine the proper amount of recovery and affirm the judgment, subject to the filing of a remittitur of the amount in excess thereof. Avery Freight Lines v. Stewart, 258 Ala. 524, 630 So.2d 895 (1953); Gulf States Steel Co. v. Comstock, 17 Ala. App. 430, 85 So. 305 (1920). Necessarily, however, the invocation of this statutory authority is dependent upon our holding that the presumption of correctness of the jury verdict is overcome by a clear showing that the amount of the verdict is the product of passion, bias, prejudice, corruption, or other improper motive or cause. Vest v. Gay, 275 Ala. 286, 154 So.2d 297 (1963).

  2. Mobile Cab Baggage Co. v. Busby

    169 So. 2d 314 (Ala. 1964)   Cited 24 times
    In Mobile Cab Baggage Co. v. Busby, 277 Ala. 292, 169 So.2d 314, we said that the giving of a charge which was at most abstract, argumentative and misleading was not reversible error.

    The Mobile Cab and Baggage Company should have requested an explanatory charge if they were dissatisfied with the charge itself. Empire Clothing Company v. Hammons, 17 Ala. App. 60, 81 So. 838; Gulf States Steel Company v. Comstock, 17 Ala. App. 430, 85 So. 305. The giving of an abstract, argumentative or misleading charge is not of itself reversible error. Ray v. Richardson, 250 Ala. 705, 36 So.2d 89. Supreme Court Rule 45.

  3. Buzzanca v. Hagwood

    91 So. 2d 703 (Ala. 1956)   Cited 2 times

    The verdict responded in substance to the material issues. But the judgment for recovery of the land will not be disturbed even though damages are not sustained by the evidence without giving opportunity for appellee to make remission of damages or any excess. Code 1940, Tit. 7, § 811; Gulf States Steel Co. v. Comstock, 17 Ala. App. 430, 85 So. 305; Hines v. Wimbish, 204 Ala. 350, 85 So. 765. PER CURIAM.

  4. New York Life Ins. Co. v. Mason

    236 Ala. 44 (Ala. 1938)   Cited 39 times
    In New York Life Ins. Co. v. Mason, 236 Ala. 44, 180 So. 775, and New York Life Ins. Co. v. Sinquefield, 231 Ala. 185, 163 So. 812, containing language very similar to that here involved and of like import with that in the Reynolds case, the holdings were to the same effect, that is the furnishing of due proof was a condition precedent.

    The bill of exceptions fails to recite that it contains all, or substantially all, of the evidence. The giving of charges for appellee and refusal of charges for appellant will not, therefore, be considered. Postal Tel.-Cable Co. v. Hulsey, 115 Ala. 193, 22 So. 854; Gulf States Steel Co. v. Comstock, 17 Ala. App. 430, 85 So. 305. There was no error in overruling defendant's objection to the introduction in evidence of the policy of insurance. The complaint substantially followed the Code form. There was no material variance.

  5. Alabama Fuel Iron Co. v. Andrews

    212 Ala. 336 (Ala. 1925)   Cited 30 times

    The judgment was excessive, and new trial should have been granted. Gulf States S. Co. v. Beveridge, 209 Ala. 473, 96 So. 587; Gulf States Steel Co. v. Comstock, 17 Ala. App. 430, 85 So. 305. H. M. Abercrombie and Edgar Allen, both of Birmingham, for appellee.

  6. Mooneyham v. Herring

    210 Ala. 168 (Ala. 1923)   Cited 13 times

    The bill of exceptions does not purport to contain all the evidence, and it will be presumed there was evidence to support the action of the court in denying motion for new trial, and in instructing the jury. Middle-brooks v. Sanders, 180 Ala. 407, 61 So. 898; Jones v. Spear, 204 Ala. 402, 85 So. 472; Gulf States Steel Co. v. Comstock, 17 Ala. App. 430, 85 So. 305; Morgan v. Embry, 17 Ala. App. 276, 85 So. 580; Kay v. Elston, 205 Ala. 307, 87 So. 525; Mudd v. Gray, 200 Ala. 92, 75 So. 468; City Cleaning Co. v. B'ham Water Co., 204 Ala. 51, 85 So. 291; Ex parte Washburn, 201 Ala. 698, 77 So. 1002. Objections to the oral charge should be to particular parts; not to substance. Coca-Cola Bot. Co. v. Barksdale, 17 Ala. App. 606, 88 So. 36.

  7. Birmingham Electric Co. v. Walden

    31 So. 2d 762 (Ala. Crim. App. 1947)   Cited 7 times

    We have treated only those assignments of error upon which insistence is registered in brief of appellant's counsel. Supreme Court Rule 10, Code 1940, Tit. 7 Appendix; Gulf States Steel Co. v. Comstock, 17 Ala. App. 430, 85 So. 305; Downey v. Johnson, 31 Ala. App. 514, 19 So.2d 85. The judgment of the primary court is ordered affirmed.

  8. Southern Ry. Co. v. Alspaugh

    140 So. 771 (Ala. Crim. App. 1932)

    It is further ordered and adjudged that, if said remittitur is duly filed by appellee, the judgment of the lower court for $100 is in all things affirmed. Gulf States Steel Co. v. Comstock et al., 17 Ala. App. 430, 85 So. 305. Affirmed conditionally.

  9. American Ry. Express Co. v. McMinn

    99 So. 657 (Ala. Crim. App. 1924)

    D. Isbell, of Guntersville, for appellee. The bill of exceptions does not purport to contain all the evidence, and the trial court will not be put in error in reference to its finding of facts. Middlebrooks v. Sanders, 180 Ala. 407, 61 So. 898; Hall Farley v. Ala. Termi. Imp. Co., 173 Ala. 398, 56 So. 235; City of Montgomery v. Stephens, 14 Ala. App. 274, 69 So. 970; So. Ry. Co. v. E. L. Kendall Co., 14 Ala. App. 242, 69 So. 328; Climer v. St. Clair Co., Tel. Co., 200 Ala. 656, 77 So. 30; Prude v. Thompson, 201 Ala. 595, 79 So. 21; Gulf States Steel Co. v. Comstock, 17 Ala. App. 430, 85 So. 305; Mathews Hdw. Co. v. Allied Sales Corp., ante, p. 303, 97 So. 166. SAMFORD. J.