4 So. 2d 202 | Ala. Ct. App. | 1941
The brief and argument of appellant challenges the propriety of the trial court's action in refusing certain of her duly requested written charges, among which were two general affirmative charges.
The various assignments asserting error in this regard are argued as a group, but some, if not all, of these charges were correctly refused. Therefore the rule, that several assignments to the refusal of charges, argued in bulk, will not be considered where one or more of such charges were properly refused, pretermits consideration of their refusal here. Ogburn v. Montague,
The appellant having refrained (in brief) from making a condensed recital of the evidence in compliance with the rule (Sup.Ct. Rule 10), we will not attempt to recite the facts which, in our view, justified submitting the case to the jury. Lamar Life Ins. Co. v. Kemp, ante, p. 138,
What this court said in Alabama Power Co. v. Gladden,
"The well established rule of law governing the giving of general affirmative charges, and applicable here, is that, when the evidence is in conflict or when conflicting inferences may reasonably be drawn therefrom, or where it contains conflicting tendencies, a jury question is presented and the general affirmative charge should not be given nor a verdict directed. Jefferson County B. L. Association v. Weaver,
Or as stated by our Supreme Court in Ruffin Coal Transfer Co. v. Rich,
The testimony of the plaintiff, as that of other of his witnesses, although sharply contradicted by the defendant's evidence warranted decision of the issue by the jury and sufficiently supported the verdict returned. *256
The remaining assignments of error are not sufficiently argued in brief to invoke a review by the appellate courts. Powell v. Pate, ante, p. 10,
The entire case considered, we find no error to reverse. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.