From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wunderlich v. Southern Const. Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama
May 13, 1937
174 So. 318 (Ala. 1937)

Opinion

6 Div. 135.

May 13, 1937.

Taylor Higgins and Chas. E. Hawkins, Jr., all of Birmingham, opposed.

Rosenthal Rosenthal, Walter S. Smith, and Walter S. Smith, Jr., all of Birmingham, for the motion.


This cause comes before us on petition of Martin Wunderlich for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals, to review and revise the opinion and judgment of that court in the case of Martin Wunderlich v. Southern Construction Company, Inc., 27 Ala. App. 458, 174 So. 317.

We have uniformly held that we would not review the evidence, as contained in the record, to determine for ourselves what the facts of the case really were, but would accept and act upon the finding of the facts as made by the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals has properly applied the law of the case to the facts as found by them, and we must, therefore, deny the writ prayed for.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and BROWN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Wunderlich v. Southern Const. Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama
May 13, 1937
174 So. 318 (Ala. 1937)
Case details for

Wunderlich v. Southern Const. Co.

Case Details

Full title:WUNDERLICH v. SOUTHERN CONST. CO

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: May 13, 1937

Citations

174 So. 318 (Ala. 1937)
234 Ala. 178

Citing Cases

Flannagin v. State

Therefore, we cannot here consider petitioner's contention. We have uniformly held that we would look only to…

Ex Parte Thaggard

"We have uniformly held that we would not review the evidence, as contained in the record, to determine for…