*1 running lone implicit is an thread rule. If the grants There trial who or ef- throughout to the denies the majority motion for new trial has the logic requires presump- courage fect same to state reason or reasons for respect so, trial doing tion with we will of correctness not have to this resort to a denying court’s or a motion for charade. on the evidence only I

ground. can observe that the imme- logic high-

diacy is transcended of in- against

er constitutional admonition jury.

fringement right of to trial all, beauty,

After is logic, like so often eyes of beholder. 321 So.2d 178 remand con- I would reverse and on the comport a remittitur to ev- dition of to Gene HARGRAVE damages. the issue of idence on COMPANY, DAVIS-HUNT COTTON HEFLIN, FAULKNER, J., J.,C. corp. a concur. SC FAULKNER, (dissenting). Justice Supreme Court of Alabama. Sept. 25, I of concur the dissent Mr. Justice purpose write for the of I this Jones. question, wit, Judge a “Will the asking meaning

who the words knows up?” please

“plainly and stand palpably” Dictionary

The Third New International capable “palpably”

defines as the adverb

being palpable. “Palpable” is defined as per-

capable or being felt, touched ceptible “Palp” to the sense touch. meaning from “palpare,” comes the Latin or to stroke caress.

I word “plainly.” can understand grew “right

is used a smart” folks who

up “Plainly” in rural areas of the South. So,

means distinctly, clearly. or when “plainly palpably”

words are used evidence,”

describe the does “weight of “clearly

that mean the touch-

ing” “distinctly caressing ?” are “plainly palpably”

The words pleasing my having

about as a as to me

good prickly Surely, case of heat. more meaningful,

descriptive, and be words can say

found to how evidence is much neces-

sary time, point really

At this there is no having

sound Ma- reason for the Cobb v. *2 Athens,

Patton, Legge, Latham &

appellant. Shinn, Jr., Decatur, ap- E.

William pellee. in granting

ble error motion Davis-Hunt’s upon for new trial grounds stated or upon any good grounds. other

We hold that the trial court was and, error accordingly, we affirm its deci- sion.

Briefly summarized, the facts are as fol- lows: The duration of the contract was April, 1973, 15, from to December 1973. period During price this the of cotton rose dramatically per pound from 32 cents PER CURIAM. per pound. more than 80 cents appears output” appeal “cotton under practice, involves a the normal trade cot- Davis-Hunt ton is ginned between the Cotton taken to be contract as soon as it is picked, Har- Company, (appellee) usually and Gene which day Inc. takes a or two at Thus, wherein Davis-Hunt the grave (appellant) most. the evidence introduced $52,810.50 damages for breach both claims sides centered along the lines of whether Hargrave contract. had valid excuses for failing get his ginned cotton before contract, Hargrave agreed to Under December 15 deadline pur- or whether he pro- the cotton he sell Davis-Hunt all of posefully delayed ginning such in order to 1973, De- ginned before during duced and render the unacceptable cotton to the con- per price 16, 1973, cember at of 30 cents tract, thereby freeing it for sale to other pound. Hargrave produced a total of 721 cotton brokers higher price. at a season, of during of cotton the 1973 bales 105,621 bales, pounds, 1973, weighing In Hargrave which place farmed the Hill 212. place, not and the McCrary were delivered to Davis-Hunt. arrangement- being that he pay would the- owner of each verdict in favor of The returned a farm of the cotton produced he during J/3 $9,000 and amount of year. The record ginning of the local motion, court, the trial on Davis-Hunt’s facility indicated that the cotton from the principal thrust granted a new trial. The place, Hill which was delivered to Davis- motion, which contained Davis-Hunt’s Hunt Hargrave pursuant to the con- the verdict grounds, 23 numbered was that tract, ginned 18, was on November contrary contrary was to the evidence The given cotton McCrary for his share of the evidence. ginned was last 24, on November while the registered cotton Hargrave’s name, pro- granting The order of the trial court duced on McCrary place, pertinent part: ginned motion states in as 1, follows: bales; on December three on “As court in this views 8, December bales; twelve on December jury might case the have found that the 12, bales; nine 28, and on December De- recover; plaintiff was not entitled to 29, 3, cember January 4, January two- but, plaintiff finding enti- hundred-twelve bales. recover, opin- tled to court is of the 1973, During Hargrave decided he would ion that the evidence does not procedure alter his usual using a mod- damages. the verdict as The ule maker picked instead of loading the damages appears amount of set to have cotton transport into trailers for to the cot- compromise.” been a result of error or gin. ton Under the procedure, cotton presented by appeal picked, compacted The issue this is was large into bales cotton, whether the trial court committed reversi- seed placed pallets, located applicable of our deci pallet was rule Each at the ends of the rows. this, sions, this as is that of cotton. in' such cases capable about 10 bales holding or judge’s testified that court will reverse for Davis-Hunt Witnesses are con unless we 1 be- der a new trial they Hargrave on December visited evidence, vinced, upon a review of they over the small cause were concerned jury’s supports the palpably it plainly him thus cotton received from amount of plainly palpably shows pallets verdict or time, At that there were 19 far. Malone, trial court to be in error. Cobb edges of the containing cotton on the 15A, 71, infra; 72(9), New Trial Vol. fields. Digest. Alabama performing the justify delay To contract, Hargrave the follow- introduced (1975), 294 Ala. In Hubbard v. Halstead evidence; ing concurrently 169, released 321 So.2d reaf- opinion, this has with this Court gin- pallets made that the use of *4 principles' of long firmed the established diffi- ning process and more slower Malone, 630, 9 738 v. 92 Ala. So. Cobb cult; governing our (1891). The rules review increases the that the maker

2. module new trial granting motions for of orders fewer grade requires repeated of cotton and need not be are therein stated and employees the more convention- than here. cotton; and picking al methods of clear, crystal from careful seems in of rain 1973 large that the amount

3. cause, in this consideration of the evidence delay growing season caused a in the that, palpa- plainly and it cannot be said to compared to of three weeks about support jury’s of bly the In view period the same 1972. cause, á think it would retrial of this we appropriate not be to discuss the evidence season, Hargrave sold the During 1973 any appears in herein. more detail than to ginned 15 the cotton before December per $44,000 30 cents Davis-Hunt for at to argues that it was entitled pound, ginned after Decem- and sold that verdict at all a substantial verdict or to no Company City 15 to ber the Bluff Cotton and asserts that this view was shared $63,000 per pound. at 62 cents the judge. may the trial have been view, necessary trial to court’s but it is not Thus, that the Davis-Hunt contends make that determination. that of the evidence demonstrates in procrastinated Hargrave deliberately charge the (which Under the court’s oral it in to having ginned his cotton order sell jury follow) jury was bound the was to in the price agreed to higher at a than that charged that entitled to if Davis-Hunt was hand, Hargrave contract. the other On recover, damages the its would amount contends that the evidence as to late price difference between the of contract season, weather, growing and difficul- bad market undelivered cotton and the ty pallets ginning, the cotton from the price 18, jury on was December getting excused the bulk in tardiness charged they would have to look ginned jury was the cotton and that is”— the evidence see how “to much justified had finding that Davis-Hunt the “undelivered Davis-Hunt con- cotton.” $9,000. damaged been the extent of tends, it, transcript supports there judge affirm the trial his conclu- was no evidence as to which of We them, 212 sion that the evidence did not bales less than all of were de- layed damages verdict and that the of “bad To conclude amount because faith.” awarded the result of er- otherwise would result in a verdict based conjecture. compromise. speculation ror or on mere

701 compromise and, justified therefore, set must be If a verdict is not presented Reynolds, aside. & v. hypothesis Holcomb Bowden reasonable some instructions, 190, 200 Ala. (1917). 75 938 the court’s So. the evidence under Cigar it S. D. Winn then cannot stand. 466, Wilson, Ala.App. Co. 48 v. 35 So.2d JONES, (dissenting): Justice (per Harwood, (1950) J.).

64 my dissenting I respectfully dissent. See Halstead, appears When Hubbard Ala. it the verdict cannot 294 688, hypothesis So.2d any reasonable 321 be sustained on evidence, the of fact founded on the ver here, When, as is order result dict must be held to have been the assigned ground based on the that the ver- compromise must set or mistake and be preponderance dict is contrary great Rey et al. v. aside. Holcomb & Bowden evidence, the common law standard nolds, 190, (1917). 200 75 938 Ala. So. applicable to presiding judge is Here, judge the trial found verdict verdict must be sustained if there is “evi- compromise.” the result of such “error or dence on both sides or some evidence 1 support the verdict.” Cobb v. & Malone course, Of Collins, (1891). Ala. So. 738 because, permitted to set aside the verdict opinion, case, jury gave in his too In this $9,000 little verdict was sub- However, stantially too much. our under rule of lower than the relief demanded *5 cases, so, appellee, once he his order will not but this a does fact alone is not be reversed and sufficient basis plainly unless the evidence a for granting motion palpably supports new trial. The evidence introduced verdict. desirability of implementing module makers that therefore we affirm the order and the that unusually large an plaintiff Davis-Hunt a new delayed amount of crop rain three trial. weeks were jury facets which the could properly in determining pro- consider what Affirmed. portion damage to Davis-Hunt was at- Hargrave’s tributable to de- unreasonable MERRILL, BLOODWORTH, MAD- lay. DOX, EMBRY, ALMON, SHORES JJ., concur. Admittedly, the record that no reveals single testimony supports $9,000 witness’s a

HEFLIN, J., specially. C. concurs Indeed, the tendencies of the evi- dence adduced a JONES, JJ., FAULKNER and dissent. $52,810.50 plaintiff, verdict while the tendencies of the evidence adduced HEFLIN, in (concurring Chief Justice Hargrave support a verdict for the defend- result) : ant —no recovery. The trial Court’s order granting a new trial has effect of hold- I would affirm the judge. IWhile ing that jury accept bound agreement am in with con- Justice Jones’ whole the contention of one side or cept scope appellate review when I agree. other. cannot judge a trial grants a motion for new trial, I am convinced that jury sure, was free —to be it was did abuse his discretion in this I case. obligated sift from the whole of —to am of the jury truth; verdict and, evidence the its effort have must been the result of truth, may any mistake find the accept the jury Judge pra, manifestly unjust, The trial did not base order on the the verdict was ground Halstead, agree ground applicable. discussed Hubbard su- I is not 702

part reject any part any witness’s finding prerogative

testimony. This fact in- clearly defined in the Court’s oral (cid:127) the jury. structions to

Here, lay jury found that the truth nothing

somewhere between the all or con- and, parties; my opinion,

tentions of supports right

the evidence its find. to so important

It is to remember that it is not presiding judge

the role of the to re-exam-

ine the facts of each case and decide jury

whether the has returned the best of verdicts; possible

all his role is

make sure that the has based its ver- properly

dict on some evidence before it.

I would reverse remand.

FAULKNER, J., concurs. So.2d

W. Fred PARKER

John T. McGAHA.

SC 648.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Sept. 18, 1975. Rehearing

As Corrected on Denial of Oct.