eighth assignment error in Tennessee

1955With reference to the correctness of the trial judge’s having granted a motion for a directed verdict against the will, wMch question is presented by the eighth assignment of error, it is evident from the record before ns that he felt that the situation was controlled by the decision of the Court of Appeals in the case of Lawrence v. Lawrence, 35 Tenn. App. 648 , 250 S. W. (2d) 781 , — the opinion in that case having been written by Hickerson, J.

1955With reference to the correctness of the trial judge’s having granted a motion for a directed verdict against the will, wMch question is presented by the eighth assignment of error, it is evident from the record before ns that he felt that the situation was controlled by the decision of the Court of Appeals in the case of Lawrence v. Lawrence, 35 Tenn. App. 648 , 250 S. W. (2d) 781 , — the opinion in that case having been written by Hickerson, J.

1935And we will defer the further consideration of the eighth assignment of error until we come to the consideration of the last assignment (the eleventh) through which defendants insist that the verdict was excessive. ’ ’ In Baskin & Cole v. Whitson, 8 Tenn. App., 578 , at page 590, the •court set out various cases in which erroneous charges concerning damages were held cured by remittiturs as follows: “An error bearing solely upon the amount is cured by remittitur.

1929The next criticism of the charge is directed to the following paragraph, viz.: “But if you shall find that an ordinarily careful driver, situated as the defendant’s truck driver was at the time said truck was running backwards and out of control, would or reasonably might have failed to adopt the safest method to prevent the accident, then the defendant would not be liable *295 if the defendant’s truck driver failed to adopt the safest method to have prevented the accident, that is, defendant would not be liable on that ground.” It is said that the word “reasonably” should not have been used w

1923It is said ( 128 Tenn. at page 655 , 163 S. W.,‘809): “Under the eighth assignment of error the act is sought to he held in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution because the notice provided by the statute is insufficient.

1918“The general rule that one receiving money in discharge of a liability must restore it before he can avoid the contract for fraud does not apply, if he is in any event entitled to retain the amount received.” Fox v. Hudson’s Ex’x et al., 150 Ky., 115 , 150 S. W., 49 , reported in Ann.

1918“The general rule that one receiving money in discharge of a liability must restore it before he can avoid the contract for fraud does not apply, if he is in any event entitled to retain the amount received.” Fox v. Hudson’s Ex’x et al., 150 Ky., 115 , 150 S. W., 49 , reported in Ann.