371 So. 2d 42 | Ala. | 1978
Lead Opinion
This Court granted certiorari to review the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals to determine whether that court, in a split decision, applied the correct rule of law in reviewing findings of fact made by the trial court. We reverse and remand.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support findings of fact made by a trial judge, sitting without a jury, the law sayeth:
“On appeal, this court does not weigh the evidence as regards its reasonably satisfying effect on the issue tendered, but in considering it, we indulge all favorable presumptions to sustain the trial court’s conclusion and will not disturb it unless plainly erroneous or manifestly unjust. Maxwell v. City of Birmingham, 271 Ala. 570, 126 So.2d 209; Decker v. Hays, 282 Ala. 93, 209 So.2d 378.”
After reviewing the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, and the record for a better understanding of the facts set out in that opinion, we conclude that the Court of Civil Appeals has erred in reversing the judgment of the trial court, and misapplied the rule of appellate review quoted herein. Its
Respondent Thompson filed a motion to quash the Writ of Certiorari. That motion is denied.
MOTION TO QUASH DENIED: REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting).
I must respectfully dissent, as I would quash the writ as improvidently granted. The decision of the Court of Civil Appeals did not, in my judgment, misapply the rule of appellate review by weighing the evidence, as suggested in the majority opinion. To the contrary, it adhered to the rule of appellate review that is, the trial court will be reversed only if its judgment is clearly and palpably wrong or is without supporting evidence or is manifestly unjust. Jefferson Home Furn. Co. Inc. v. Jefferson Furn. Co., Inc., 349 So.2d 5 (Ala.1977); Sterling Oil of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Pack, 291 Ala. 727, 287 So.2d 847 (1973).
FAULKNER, JONES and SHORES, JJ., concur.
