Wright v. Empire Coal Co.
Cases that cite this one
26 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Burns v. State (Ala. 1944)
- England v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1940)
- England v. State (Ala. 1940)
- Byrd v. State Ex Rel. Colquett (Ala. 1924)
- Opinion of the Justices (Ala. 1985)
- Opinion of the Justices (Ala. 1982)
- Peddycoart v. City of Birmingham (Ala. 1978)
- Eagen v. State (Ala. 1967)
- Ex parte Hanna (Ala. 1958)
- In re Opinion of the Justices (Ala. 1955)
- Reeves v. State (Ala. 1953)
- Hall v. Underwood (Ala. 1953)
- Steadman v. Kelly (Ala. 1948)
- Morgan County v. Edmonson (Ala. 1939)
- Talley v. Webster (Ala. 1932)
- State Ex Rel. Day v. Bowles (Ala. 1928)
- McMurray v. County Board of Education (Ala. 1927)
- Crowson v. Cody (Ala. 1926)
- Roseberry v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1924)
- State Ex Rel. Harmon v. Murphy (Ala. 1924)
- Polytinsky v. Wilhite (Ala. 1924)
- Faircloth-Segrest Mercantile Co. v. Roach (Ala. 1924)
- Tayloe v. Davis (Ala. 1924)
- State Ex Rel. Brooks v. Gullatt (Ala. 1923)
- Board of Revenue v. Kayser (Ala. 1921)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.