TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Aetna Accident & Liability Co. v. Birmingham R. L. & P. Co.

Aetna Accident & Liab. Co. v. Birmingham R. L. & P. Co., 73 So. 383 (Ala. 1916)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Alabama · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 7, 1916
Judges
Mayfield, McClellan, Somerville, Thomas
Citations
73 So. 383198 Ala. 721916 Ala. LEXIS 170
Disposition
Judgment reversed, and the motion to set aside the verdict and judgment granted, and the cause remanded.
Headnotes
Damage to Automobile. 1. New Trial; Motion, to Set Aside Verdict. — Where the action was for damages to an automobile, and the undisputed evidence showed that the damage to the car was at least $600, and the jury found for plaintiff in the sum of only $20, the court should have granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict and judgment on the ground that if plaintiff was entitled to recover at all, it was entitled to recover more than $20. 2. Same; Duty of Supreme Court. — In such a case it is the duty of the appellate court to render the judgment which should have been rendered by the court below — to set aside the judgment and grant a new trial.
Summary
Appeal from Birmingham City Court. Heard before Hon. C. W. Ferguson. The Aetna Accident & Liability Company sued the Birmingham Railway, Light & Power Company for damages to an automobile 'in collision with a street car, and recovered a verdict in the sum of $20. It made a motion to set aside the verdict and judgment and to be granted a new trial, on the ground that, if entitled to recover, it was entitled to a verdict for more than the sum granted, on the undisputed evidence in the case. The court overruled the motion and plaintiff appealed. Transferred from Court of Appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Somerville

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

SOMERVILLE, J.

This is an action to recover for damage done to an automobile in a collision with one of defendant’s cars, due, as alleged, to the negligence of defendant or its servants. The undisputed evidence shows that the damage to the car, resulting directly from the collision, was at least $600. The jury found for the plaintiff, but they awarded as damages the scarcely more than nominal sum of $20. Plaintiff moved to set aside the *73 verdict and judgment on the ground, among others, that “if entitled to recover at all, it was entitled to recover more than $20.” This motion was overruled, and that action is now assigned for error.

(1) In accordance with the law as settled in this state and elsewhere, planitiff’s motion should have been granted .—Harde man v. Williams, 157 Ala. 422 , 48 South. 108 ; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Street, 164 Ala. 155 , 51 South. 306 , 20 Ann. Cas. 877; Moseley v. Jamison, 68 Miss. 336 , 8 South. 744 ; 4 Sedg. on Dam. (9th Ed.) § 1368; 29 Cyc. 847, c, and numerous cases cited.

(2) If there were any dispute as to the amount of damages suffered, we would hesitate to reverse the judgment of the trial court on such a motion. But, there being no dispute, it is our duty to render here the judgment which should have been rendered below, granting a new trial, and it is so ordered.

Judgment reversed, motion to set aside verdict, and judgment granted, and the cause remanded.

Reversed, rendered," and remanded.

McClellan, Mayfield, and Thomas, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1926: 11927: 11931: 11980: 119262026peak 1926 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Stinson v. Acme Propane Gas Co.391 So. 2d 659 (Ala. 1980)
  2. Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Randle112 So. 112 (Ala. 1927)
  3. Cocke v. Edwards108 So. 857 (Ala. 1926)
  4. Tennessee Coal, Iron R. Co. v. Dunlap137 So. 320 (Ala. Ct. App. 1931)

Most recent

  1. Stinson v. Acme Propane Gas Co.391 So. 2d 659 (Ala. 1980)
  2. Tennessee Coal, Iron R. Co. v. Dunlap137 So. 320 (Ala. Ct. App. 1931)
  3. Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Randle112 So. 112 (Ala. 1927)
  4. Cocke v. Edwards108 So. 857 (Ala. 1926)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Louisville & Nashville R. R. v. St., 51 So. 306 (Ala. 1909) 40
Hardeman v. Williams, 48 So. 108 (Ala. 1908) 5
Moseley v. Jamison, 68 Miss. 336 (1890) 20

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