TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wright v. Empire Coal Co.

Wright v. Empire Coal Co., 74 So. 939 (Ala. 1917)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Alabama · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 12, 1917
Judges
Anderson, Mayfield, Somerville, Thomas
Citations
74 So. 939199 Ala. 4271917 Ala. LEXIS 205
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Injury Action. New Trial; Grounds; Verdict Contrary to Instructions. — Where the court at defendant’s request and w’ith plaintiff’s express consent gave charges which under the undisputed evidence were in effect the affirmative charge for defendant, an order of the court setting aside a verdict for the plaintiff will not be reversed on appeal, since such verdict was contrary to the instructions of the court.
Summary
Appeal from Walker Circuit Court. Heard before Hon. J. J. CURTIS. Ed Wright sued the Empire Coal Company and had judgment, which was set aside on motion of the defendant, and a new trial granted, from which latter order plaintiff 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 — Mayfield

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

MAYFIELD, J.

The only question presented on this appeal, is whether or not the trial court erred in setting aside a verdict in favor of plaintiff (appellant here) and awarding a new trial.

The record has been carefully examined, and we are not prepared to say that the trial court erred in awarding a new trial. While the trial court did not in terms give the affirmative charge for the defendant on every issue submitted to the jury, it did in effect so charge the jury; and many of the charges, which, under the undisputed evidence, were in effect the affirmative charge for the defendant, were given, not at plaintiff’s request, but at defendant’s request, and with the express consent of plaintiff that they be given. So there is no doubt that the verdict of the jury was therefore contrary to the instructions of the court; and for this reason, if for no other, we would not reverse the order and judgment of the trial court awarding a new trial. We do not, however, mean' to intimate that there were not other reasons justifying the action of the trial court.

Affirmed.

Anderson, C. J., and Somerville and Thomas, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 27 cases

View all citing references →
1921: 21923: 11924: 61926: 11927: 11928: 11932: 11939: 11940: 21944: 11946: 11948: 11953: 21955: 11958: 11967: 11978: 11982: 11985: 119212026peak 1924 · 6

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Burns v. State19 So. 2d 450 (Ala. 1944)
  2. Byrd v. State ex rel. Colquett102 So. 223 (Ala. 1924)
  3. England v. State197 So. 365 (Ala. 1940)
  4. England v. State197 So. 369 (Ala. Ct. App. 1940)
  5. Peddycoart v. City of Birmingham354 So. 2d 808 (Ala. 1978)
  6. State ex rel. Brooks v. Gullatt98 So. 373 (Ala. 1923)

Most recent

  1. Opinion of the Justices469 So. 2d 105 (Ala. 1985)
  2. Opinion of the Justices425 So. 2d 407 (Ala. 1982)
  3. Peddycoart v. City of Birmingham354 So. 2d 808 (Ala. 1978)
  4. Eagen v. State194 So. 2d 842 (Ala. 1967)
  5. Ex parte Hanna103 So. 2d 720 (Ala. 1958)
  6. In re Opinion of the Justices83 So. 2d 714 (Ala. 1955)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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