Grimes v. Jackson

SIMPSON, Justice.

Certiorari to the Court of Appeals.

It was the opinion of the Court of Appeals that the three matters numbered a,, b, and c under § 1 constituted but one assignment of error and that since two of' these assignments were bad, the entire assignment of error was of no avail. Bryan v. Day, 228 Ala. 91 , 151 So. 854 ; White v. Henry, 255 Ala. 7 , 49 So.2d 779 ; Tucker v. City of Birmingham, 35 Ala.App. 540 , 50 So.2d 777 .

Without deciding whether or not. assignments b and c were too general to invite review, we note that it is stated in the-beginning of § 1 that “the court erred in denying appellant’s motion for a new trial set out on page 62 of the transcript herein.” This assignment had the effect of raising as a distinct assignment of error-every ground stated in the motion for new-trial except that the verdict was contrary-to law. Of such is the import of the celebrated case of Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630 , 9 So. 738 . A general assignment of error on appeal grounded on the refusal of' the trial court to grant a motion for a new trial is sufficient to invite a review of the-ruling on the basis of any ground well stated in the motion and properly argued by appellant; that is, when the motion for new trial is sufficient to specify the precise error alleged to have occurred, a general assignment of error on appeal for refusing-the motion is sufficient to bring up for review those matters so precisely set out in the motion. See also Peoples Tel. Co. v. Buchanon, 37 Ala.App. 371, 374 , 68 So.2d 854 . Cf. Groover v. Darden, 259 Ala. 607 , 68 So.2d 28 .

We think, therefore, that the Court of Appeals should have treated all points.

*23 •properly raised by the motion for new trial and argued in that court. Of consequence the judgment of that court must be reversed.

Reversed and remanded.

All the Justices concur.