TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Yates v. Barnett

Yates v. Barnett.

Yates v. Barnett, 112 So. 122 (Ala. 1927)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Alabama · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 24, 1927
Docket
No. 5 Div. 971.
Judges
Anderson, Brown, Somerville, Thomas
Citations
112 So. 122215 Ala. 5541927 Ala. LEXIS 579

Opinion of the Court — Thomas

*555 THOMAS, J.

The case was tried upon counts 1 and 5. There was a jury and verdict for the plaintiff. The record proper— “judgment entry” — fails to show a specific ruling on demurrer, and we do not consider the assignment of errors predicated on ruling on demurrer to the complaint. Berger v. Dempster, 204 Ala. 305 , 85 So. 392 ; Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Pemberton, 202 Ala. 55 , 79 So. 393 ; Ala. Chemical Co. v. Niles, 156 Ala. 298 , 47 So. 239 .

To present for review the denial of the motion for a new trial, that ruling and exception thereto must be duly incorporated in the bill of exceptions. Stokes v. Hinton, 197 Ala. 230 , 72 So. 503 ; Smith v. Yearwood, 197 Ala. 680 , 73 So. 384 ; L. & N. R. Co. v. Phillips, 202 Ala. 502 , 80 So. 790 ; Birmingham Water Works v. Justice, 204 Ala. 547 , 86 So. 389 ; Pacific Fire Ins. Co. of N. Y. v. Burnett, 212 Ala. 287 , 102 So. 214 .

There were conflicting reasonable tendencies of evidence, or open to reasonable inferences unfavorable to him who requests siich charge, and affirmative instruction should therefore properly be refused. McMillan v. Aiken, 205 Ala. 35, 40 , 88 So. 135 .

Refused charge 4 was sufficiently covered by given charge 2 and the oral charge.

There was no error in allowing the witness Barnett, who had qualified as an expert machinist, to answer the question of the effect on the motor of driving a new car at an excessive rate of Steed. It was material and relevant with the other evidence and the issues of fact presented to the jury. The witness, as an expert, may give an opinion, after inspection or with a knowledge of the facts made the subject of inquiry, whether the motor was in first-class condition at the time and circumstances inquired about. Burton & Son v. May, 212 Ala. 435 , 103 So. 46 .

The objection of plaintiff to the question to Barnett, whether he “made a proposition to settle,” was properly sustained. It called for the fact and substance of a bona fide offer of compromise of the suit and claim thereby made, and such offers are regarded in nature as confidential overtures of pacification. The policy of the law favors amicable adjusting of litigation. Feibelman v. Manchester Fire Assurance Co., 108 Ala. 180, 198 , 19 So. 540 ; Alexander v. Wheeler, 69 Ala. 332, 341 ; Spragins v. Fitcheard, 206 Ala. 694 , 91 So. 793 ; Kelly v. Brooks, 25 Ala. 523 .

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. J., and SOMERVILLE and BROWN, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1928: 11929: 21931: 11932: 11935: 11941: 11960: 11966: 119282026peak 1929 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Aaron v. State122 So. 2d 360 (Ala. 1960)
  2. J. C. Byram & Co. v. Livingston143 So. 461 (Ala. 1932)
  3. Watson v. Hardaway-Covington Cotton Co.137 So. 33 (Ala. 1931)
  4. Green v. City of Birmingham4 So. 2d 394 (Ala. 1941)
  5. King v. State123 So. 290 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929)
  6. Davis v. State124 So. 391 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929)

Most recent

  1. Crawford v. Holmes & Waddell, Inc.190 So. 2d 282 (Ala. 1966)
  2. Aaron v. State122 So. 2d 360 (Ala. 1960)
  3. Green v. City of Birmingham4 So. 2d 394 (Ala. 1941)
  4. Darby v. Fuller159 So. 275 (Ala. Ct. App. 1935)
  5. J. C. Byram & Co. v. Livingston143 So. 461 (Ala. 1932)
  6. Watson v. Hardaway-Covington Cotton Co.137 So. 33 (Ala. 1931)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 14

DepthCaseCited by
McMillan v. Aiken, 88 So. 135 (Ala. 1920) 356
J. H. Burton Sons Co. v. May, 103 So. 46 (Ala. 1925) 32
Ala. Chem. Co. v. Niles, 47 So. 239 (Ala. 1908) 24
Spragins v. Fitcheard, 91 So. 793 (Ala. 1921) 18
Smith v. Yearwood, 73 So. 384 (Ala. 1916) 17
Birmingham Waterworks Co. v. Justice, 86 So. 389 (Ala. 1920) 15
Louisville N. R. Co. v. Phillips, 80 So. 790 (Ala. 1918) 15
Berger v. Dempster, 85 So. 392 (Ala. 1920) 12
Stokes v. Hinton, 72 So. 503 (Ala. 1916) 12
Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Pemberton, 79 So. 393 (Ala. 1918) 9
Pac. Fire Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Burnett, 102 So. 214 (Ala. 1924) 6
Alexander v. Wheeler, 69 Ala. 332 (1881) 71
Feibelman v. Manchester Fire Assurance Co., 108 Ala. 180 (1895) 33
Kelly v. Brooks, 25 Ala. 523 (1854) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list