Johnson v. HodgeJohnson v. Hodge
Plaintiff, Roy Johnson, brought this action in the nature of ejectment to recover possession of 42i/¿ acres of land. Plaintiff claimed ownership of the fee and the right to possession by virtue of a deed executed in 1925 by his grandmother, Mrs. M. E. Hodge. This 1925 deed reserved a life estate in Mrs. Hodge, the grantor, granted a life estate to plaintiff’s mother, Gladys Hodge Johnson, and granted the remainder to plaintiff. At the time of the filing of this suit, both Mrs. Hodge and Mrs. Johnson were deceased, so that the life estates were terminated.
The complaint asserts that defendants claim to own the property in question under a deed executed by Gladys Hodge Johnson, who owned only a life estate in the property and is now deceased.
At the conclusion of the trial, the trial judge gave the affirmative charge, with hypothesis, for plaintiff.
Subsequently, the trial court granted defendants’ motion for new trial, without stating the ground or grounds upon which the new trial was granted. On this appeal by plaintiff, the substance of each assignment of error is that the trial court erred in granting a new trial in the cause.
Appellees did not file a brief. The case was submitted in this Court on the record and appellant’s brief.
Either party in a civil case at law has a statutory right of appeal from a decision of the circuit court either granting or refusing a motion for new trial. Title 7, Section 764, Code of Alabama (Re-comp.1958). However, granting or refusing a motion for new trial is a matter resting largely in the discretion of the trial court, and the exercise of this discretion carries with it a presumption of correctness. Shepherd v. Southern Ry. Co.,
When the trial court’s ruling in granting a new trial is based on no specific ground, as here, the ruling must be sustained on appeal if any good ground is presented by the motion. Shepherd v. Southern Ry. Co.,
“When a motion for a new trial presents several grounds and is sustained *144 generally, the ruling cannot be disturbed, unless it is shown that the motion could not have been properly sustained on any of the grounds urged. . . . ”
Therefore, the proper course for an appellant who seeks reversal of the trial court’s decision granting a new trial is, by citation of authority and argument directed to each and every ground of the motion for new trial, to demonstrate that
no
ground of the motion is good. In no other way can appellant meet his burden, which is to show error in the action of the court complained of and that such error was prejudicial. King v. Scott,
The motion for new trial in the instant case contains 24 grounds. Appellant’s argument is not specifically directed to any particular ground or grounds of the motion.
It is frequently stated that an assignment that the trial court erred in overruling the motion for new trial justifies consideration of any ground of the motion stated with sufficient definiteness to direct the court’s attention to the alleged erroneous ruling, if that clear and specific ground is adequately argued in brief. National Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Allen,
The appellant has failed to show that some legal right was abused or that the record plainly and palpably shows that the trial court committed reversible error.
This cause is due to be affirmed.
Affirmed.