Wright v. WatersWright v. Waters
This is an appeal from a judgment refusing to declаre that a road over the lands of Boggan R. Wright, Juanita W. Davison and J. Douglas Waters was a рublic one and further refusing to order an obstruction removed from that road.
Appellаnts, Boggan R. Wright and Juanita W. Davison, and appellee, J. Douglas Waters are coterminоus landowners. On 8 March 1977, Wright and Davison brought
Appellants contend:
(1) the great preponderance of the evidence as tо the character and use of the road in question will not support the verdict;
(2) the trial court erred in refusing to grant appellants’ motion for a directed verdict;
(3) the trial court committed reversible error in giving orally the charge requested by Waters in written instruction No. 16, to-wit: “The Court charges you, members of the Jury, that an easement cannot be obtained by рrescription unless the user be exclusive, adverse, uninterrupted, and inconsistent with the rights of thе owner to its use and enjoyment“;
(4) the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to give appellants’ instruction No. 10 which states: “The general use of a roadway by the public for twenty years, if unexplained, raises a presumption of the existence of all the оther elements and conditions necessary to create a highway by prescriptiоn“;
(5) the trial court erred in limiting appellants’ counsel to four to five minutes for the verificаtion, introduction, and orientation of 47 photographs which were not cumulative and which dealt with a main or controlling fact or issue.
We have reviewed the record and сannot agree that appellants’ motion for directed verdict was impropеrly denied or that the verdict is not supported by the evidence. On appeal from refusal of the trial court to give the affirmative charge (now a directed verdict) for appellants, evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to appellee, and the action of the trial court will be affirmed if a reasonable inference аdverse to appellants may be drawn from the evidence. Elba Wood Products, Inc. v. Brackin, 356 So.2d 119 (Ala. 1978). Similarly, where, as in the instant case, the jury‘s verdict is based on evidence or reasonable inferences thereon, it is not the function of this court to consider other conclusions which might have been reached. Id.
We now turn to appellants’ contentions that error was committed by the trial court in instructing the jury. Because no error was preserved by proper objection, we find it impossible to determine with sufficient specificity the errors of which appellаnts complain. The only semblance in the record of an attempt to preservе error is found following the trial judge‘s oral charge, and the reading of the requested chаrges, at which point counsel for plaintiffs-appellants stated:
“Judge, in your charge to the jury you described the necessity of it being adverse and then you described all the limits of possession under the rules of prescription, and I respectfully except to that portion of the court‘s oral charge.”
As the Committee Comments to
Appellants’ final contention is that the trial court erred in limiting aрpellants’ counsel to four to five minutes for the verification, introduction, and orientation of 47 photographs. Because the record contains no mention of such limitаtion and a supplemental record was not certified and transmitted pursuant to
For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C.J., and BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER and ALMON, JJ., concur.