History
  • No items yet
midpage
Reese v. MacKentepe
227 Ala. 153
| Ala. | 1933
|
Check Treatment

The suit is on account and money had and received. Whether or not there was error in sustaining demurrer to count 1 we need not stop to inquire, as plaintiff received the full benefit thereof under added count 4 and his pleadings amply covered every theory of his case.

Indeed counsel for appellant concedes in brief the denial of plaintiff's motion for a new trial is the only question here worthy of serious consideration. *Page 154

It is argued the evidence is voluminous and the jury must have been bewildered on account of the various figures and the volume of proof. While the evidence is rather unsatisfactory and indefinite on both sides, yet it is not unusually voluminous, and a study of it discloses a sharp conflict. Reduced to its last analysis, the verdict at last must rest upon the jury's acceptance of the testimony of plaintiff or defendant.

The rule by which this court is governed in questions of this character is well understood, and needs no repetition here. Guided by that rule, we are not persuaded the action of the trial court in denying the motion for a new trial should be here disturbed. The judgment will accordingly be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and BOULDIN and FOSTER, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Reese v. MacKentepe
Court Name: Supreme Court of Alabama
Date Published: Jun 22, 1933
Citation: 227 Ala. 153
Docket Number: 6 Div. 87.
Court Abbreviation: Ala.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.