third assignment error in Alabama

1916P. & F. Co. v. McCoy, 196 Ala. 45 , 71 South. 406 ; Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Quinton, 194 Ala. 126 , 69 South. 604 . (5) The third assignment of error challenges the ruling of the court in permitting plaintiff’s counsel, in cross-examination, to ask Barrett, as a witness for the defendant, the following question :.

1916P. & F. Co. v. McCoy, 196 Ala. 45 , 71 South. 406 ; Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Quinton, 194 Ala. 126 , 69 South. 604 . (5) The third assignment of error challenges the ruling of the court in permitting plaintiff’s counsel, in cross-examination, to ask Barrett, as a witness for the defendant, the following question :.

1922Georgia Cotton Co. v. Lee, supra; Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Quinton, 194 Ala. 126, 133 , 69 South. 604 ; Western Union v. Benson, 159 Ala. 254, 273 , 48 South. 712 ; Western Ry. of Ala. v. Russell, 144 Ala. 142, 150 , 39 South. 311 , 113 Am.

1922Georgia Cotton Co. v. Lee, supra; Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Quinton, 194 Ala. 126, 133 , 69 South. 604 ; Western Union v. Benson, 159 Ala. 254, 273 , 48 South. 712 ; Western Ry. of Ala. v. Russell, 144 Ala. 142, 150 , 39 South. 311 , 113 Am.

1922Georgia Cotton Co. v. Lee, supra; Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Quinton, 194 Ala. 126, 133 , 69 South. 604 ; Western Union v. Benson, 159 Ala. 254, 273 , 48 South. 712 ; Western Ry. of Ala. v. Russell, 144 Ala. 142, 150 , 39 South. 311 , 113 Am.

1922Georgia Cotton Co. v. Lee, supra; Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Quinton, 194 Ala. 126, 133 , 69 South. 604 ; Western Union v. Benson, 159 Ala. 254, 273 , 48 South. 712 ; Western Ry. of Ala. v. Russell, 144 Ala. 142, 150 , 39 South. 311 , 113 Am.

1974Houston v. Grigsby, 217 Ala. 506 , 116 So. 686 (1928), provides the answer and stands for the proposition that, where there has been a prior adjudication of insanity of the testator, the burden shifts to the proponents to establish testamentary capacity when the will was made.

1974Houston v. Grigsby, 217 Ala. 506 , 116 So. 686 (1928), provides the answer and stands for the proposition that, where there has been a prior adjudication of insanity of the testator, the burden shifts to the proponents to establish testamentary capacity when the will was made.

1967We believe that the circumstances outlined above indicate that there was sufficient evidence presented by the plaintiff to make a case for the jury and hence there was no-error in the court’s refusal to give this, charge at the defendant’s request.—Roan, v. McCaleb, 264 Ala. 31 , 84 So.2d 358 .

1967We believe that the circumstances outlined above indicate that there was sufficient evidence presented by the plaintiff to make a case for the jury and hence there was no-error in the court’s refusal to give this, charge at the defendant’s request.—Roan, v. McCaleb, 264 Ala. 31 , 84 So.2d 358 .

1966Carlton v. Musicians Protective Ass’n, Local No. 479, 276 Ala. 128 , 159 So. 2d 831 , and cases cited; Doughty v. City of Fayette, 278 Ala. 121 , 176 So.2d 481 ; Smith v. Jackson, 277 Ala. 257 , 169 So.2d 21 .

1966Carlton v. Musicians Protective Ass’n, Local No. 479, 276 Ala. 128 , 159 So. 2d 831 , and cases cited; Doughty v. City of Fayette, 278 Ala. 121 , 176 So.2d 481 ; Smith v. Jackson, 277 Ala. 257 , 169 So.2d 21 .

1966Carlton v. Musicians Protective Ass’n, Local No. 479, 276 Ala. 128 , 159 So. 2d 831 , and cases cited; Doughty v. City of Fayette, 278 Ala. 121 , 176 So.2d 481 ; Smith v. Jackson, 277 Ala. 257 , 169 So.2d 21 .

1966Carlton v. Musicians Protective Ass’n, Local No. 479, 276 Ala. 128 , 159 So. 2d 831 , and cases cited; Doughty v. City of Fayette, 278 Ala. 121 , 176 So.2d 481 ; Smith v. Jackson, 277 Ala. 257 , 169 So.2d 21 .

1966Carlton v. Musicians Protective Ass’n, Local No. 479, 276 Ala. 128 , 159 So. 2d 831 , and cases cited; Doughty v. City of Fayette, 278 Ala. 121 , 176 So.2d 481 ; Smith v. Jackson, 277 Ala. 257 , 169 So.2d 21 .

1966Carlton v. Musicians Protective Ass’n, Local No. 479, 276 Ala. 128 , 159 So. 2d 831 , and cases cited; Doughty v. City of Fayette, 278 Ala. 121 , 176 So.2d 481 ; Smith v. Jackson, 277 Ala. 257 , 169 So.2d 21 .

1944The third assignment of error is based on refused charge numbered eight, in the following words: “I charge you that if you find from the evidence that plaintiff suffered his alleged injuries and damages as a proximate consequence of an unavoidable and inevitable accident, then and in that event you need consider the case no further and your verdict should be in favor of the defendant.” (Italics supplied.) This court has expressly said that this charge should be refused employing, as it does, the words “an unavoidable and inevitable accident.” Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Willingham, 243

1944The third assignment of error is based on refused charge numbered eight, in the following words: “I charge you that if you find from the evidence that plaintiff suffered his alleged injuries and damages as a proximate consequence of an unavoidable and inevitable accident, then and in that event you need consider the case no further and your verdict should be in favor of the defendant.” (Italics supplied.) This court has expressly said that this charge should be refused employing, as it does, the words “an unavoidable and inevitable accident.” Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Willingham, 243

1944The third assignment of error is based on refused charge numbered eight, in the following words: “I charge you that if you find from the evidence that plaintiff suffered his alleged injuries and damages as a proximate consequence of an unavoidable and inevitable accident, then and in that event you need consider the case no further and your verdict should be in favor of the defendant.” (Italics supplied.) This court has expressly said that this charge should be refused employing, as it does, the words “an unavoidable and inevitable accident.” Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Willingham, 243

1944The third assignment of error is based on refused charge numbered eight, in the following words: “I charge you that if you find from the evidence that plaintiff suffered his alleged injuries and damages as a proximate consequence of an unavoidable and inevitable accident, then and in that event you need consider the case no further and your verdict should be in favor of the defendant.” (Italics supplied.) This court has expressly said that this charge should be refused employing, as it does, the words “an unavoidable and inevitable accident.” Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Willingham, 243

1943We have indicated that in the case of Kent v. Kent, 224 Ala. 183 , 139 So. 240 ; Williams, Supt. of Banks, v. Chase Nat’l.

1943We have indicated that in the case of Kent v. Kent, 224 Ala. 183 , 139 So. 240 ; Williams, Supt. of Banks, v. Chase Nat’l.

1934This charge was approved in City of Birmingham v. Simmons, 222 Ala. Ill, 130 So. 896 , 74 A. L.

1934Mobile Electric Co. v. Nelson, 209 Ala. 554 , 96 So. 713 .

1934Mobile Electric Co. v. Nelson, 209 Ala. 554 , 96 So. 713 .

1930Springer v. Sullivan, 218 Ala. 645 , 119 So. 851 .

1930Springer v. Sullivan, 218 Ala. 645 , 119 So. 851 .

1920Standard Portland Cement Co. v. Thompson, 191 Ala. 444 , 67 South. 608; Clinton Min.

1920Standard Portland Cement Co. v. Thompson, 191 Ala. 444 , 67 South. 608; Clinton Min.

1917Reaves v. Maybank, 193 Ala. 614, 623-626 , 69 South 137 ; L. & N. R.

1917Reaves v. Maybank, 193 Ala. 614, 623-626 , 69 South 137 ; L. & N. R.

1917Keiser v. Smith, 71 Ala. 481 , 46 Am.

1916P. & F. Co. v. McCoy, 196 Ala. 45 , 71 South. 406 ; Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Quinton, 194 Ala. 126 , 69 South. 604 . (5) The third assignment of error challenges the ruling of the court in permitting plaintiff’s counsel, in cross-examination, to ask Barrett, as a witness for the defendant, the following question :.

1916P. & F. Co. v. McCoy, 196 Ala. 45 , 71 South. 406 ; Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Quinton, 194 Ala. 126 , 69 South. 604 . (5) The third assignment of error challenges the ruling of the court in permitting plaintiff’s counsel, in cross-examination, to ask Barrett, as a witness for the defendant, the following question :.

1904The answer of the witness was to a question which had been decided by the court to be illegal, and was also irrelevant to the issues of this case. (9)# The charge referred to in the 4th assignment of error did not relate to an inquiry material to the issue before the court, and was properly refused. — Crawford, Admr. v. Jones, 54 Ala. 459, 462 . (10) Charge No. 2, requested by defendant, was abstract, there being no testimony to the effect that the planks were placed across the ditch for a temporary purpose. (11) Charge No. 3 was properly refused for the same reason stated in reference to 4th