Hood v. State

1 Citing case

  1. Harbin v. Moore

    175 So. 264 (Ala. 1937)   Cited 41 times
    In Harbin v. Moore, 234 Ala. 266, 175 So. 264, 266, it is said: "The fact that there was no eye witness does not present an insuperable obstacle, if proven circumstances suffice, for it is well established that both the cause of an injury and the question of actionable negligence may be established by circumstantial evidence, with the qualification, recognized by the authorities, that the circumstances must be proven and not themselves presumed."

    In absence of proof that Moore operated his truck as a contract carrier, appellee Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Company would be entitled to the affirmative charge. Hood v. State, 26 Ala. App. 507, 162 So. 541; Id., 230 Ala. 343, 162 So. 543; Smith v. State, 23 Ala. App. 65, 120 So. 469; 42 C.J. 646, 647; American F. C. Co. v. Werfel, 231 Ala. 285, 164 So. 383. GARDNER, Justice.