argued assignments error in Alabama

1975The argued assignments of error (except 4 and 5) question the correctness of certain jury charges, argument of counsel and rulings on the admission and exclusion of evidence, all of which relate to damages and compensation. “[2] In several cases we have said in effect that where the issue involved in the trial of a condemnation case relates solely to damages and compensation to which a landowner is entitled, and the amount of the verdict of the jury is not questioned on appeal, assignments of error relating to the correctness of jury charges, jury arguments, and rulings on evidence which deal

1975The argued assignments of error (except 4 and 5) question the correctness of certain jury charges, argument of counsel and rulings on the admission and exclusion of evidence, all of which relate to damages and compensation. “[2] In several cases we have said in effect that where the issue involved in the trial of a condemnation case relates solely to damages and compensation to which a landowner is entitled, and the amount of the verdict of the jury is not questioned on appeal, assignments of error relating to the correctness of jury charges, jury arguments, and rulings on evidence which deal

1975The argued assignments of error (except 4 and 5) question the correctness of certain jury charges, argument of counsel and rulings on the admission and exclusion of evidence, all of which relate to damages and compensation. “[2] In several cases we have said in effect that where the issue involved in the trial of a condemnation case relates solely to damages and compensation to which a landowner is entitled, and the amount of the verdict of the jury is not questioned on appeal, assignments of error relating to the correctness of jury charges, jury arguments, and rulings on evidence which deal

1975The argued assignments of error (except 4 and 5) question the correctness of certain jury charges, argument of counsel and rulings on the admission and exclusion of evidence, all of which relate to damages and compensation. “[2] In several cases we have said in effect that where the issue involved in the trial of a condemnation case relates solely to damages and compensation to which a landowner is entitled, and the amount of the verdict of the jury is not questioned on appeal, assignments of error relating to the correctness of jury charges, jury arguments, and rulings on evidence which deal

1975The argued assignments of error (except 4 and 5) question the correctness of certain jury charges, argument of counsel and rulings on the admission and exclusion of evidence, all of which relate to damages and compensation. “[2] In several cases we have said in effect that where the issue involved in the trial of a condemnation case relates solely to damages and compensation to which a landowner is entitled, and the amount of the verdict of the jury is not questioned on appeal, assignments of error relating to the correctness of jury charges, jury arguments, and rulings on evidence which deal

1975The argued assignments of error (except 4 and 5) question the correctness of certain jury charges, argument of counsel and rulings on the admission and exclusion of evidence, all of which relate to damages and compensation. “[2] In several cases we have said in effect that where the issue involved in the trial of a condemnation case relates solely to damages and compensation to which a landowner is entitled, and the amount of the verdict of the jury is not questioned on appeal, assignments of error relating to the correctness of jury charges, jury arguments, and rulings on evidence which deal

1975The argued assignments of error (except 4 and 5) question the correctness of certain jury charges, argument of counsel and rulings on the admission and exclusion of evidence, all of which relate to damages and compensation. “[2] In several cases we have said in effect that where the issue involved in the trial of a condemnation case relates solely to damages and compensation to which a landowner is entitled, and the amount of the verdict of the jury is not questioned on appeal, assignments of error relating to the correctness of jury charges, jury arguments, and rulings on evidence which deal

1975The argued assignments of error (except 4 and 5) question the correctness of certain jury charges, argument of counsel and rulings on the admission and exclusion of evidence, all of which relate to damages and compensation. “[2] In several cases we have said in effect that where the issue involved in the trial of a condemnation case relates solely to damages and compensation to which a landowner is entitled, and the amount of the verdict of the jury is not questioned on appeal, assignments of error relating to the correctness of jury charges, jury arguments, and rulings on evidence which deal

1975The argued assignments of error (except 4 and 5) question the correctness of certain jury charges, argument of counsel and rulings on the admission and exclusion of evidence, all of which relate to damages and compensation. “[2] In several cases we have said in effect that where the issue involved in the trial of a condemnation case relates solely to damages and compensation to which a landowner is entitled, and the amount of the verdict of the jury is not questioned on appeal, assignments of error relating to the correctness of jury charges, jury arguments, and rulings on evidence which deal

1975The argued assignments of error (except 4 and 5) question the correctness of certain jury charges, argument of counsel and rulings on the admission and exclusion of evidence, all of which relate to damages and compensation. “[2] In several cases we have said in effect that where the issue involved in the trial of a condemnation case relates solely to damages and compensation to which a landowner is entitled, and the amount of the verdict of the jury is not questioned on appeal, assignments of error relating to the correctness of jury charges, jury arguments, and rulings on evidence which deal

1975The argued assignments of error (except 4 and 5) question the correctness of certain jury charges, argument of counsel and rulings on the admission and exclusion of evidence, all of which relate to damages and compensation. “[2] In several cases we have said in effect that where the issue involved in the trial of a condemnation case relates solely to damages and compensation to which a landowner is entitled, and the amount of the verdict of the jury is not questioned on appeal, assignments of error relating to the correctness of jury charges, jury arguments, and rulings on evidence which deal

1975The argued assignments of error (except 4 and 5) question the correctness of certain jury charges, argument of counsel and rulings on the admission and exclusion of evidence, all of which relate to damages and compensation. “[2] In several cases we have said in effect that where the issue involved in the trial of a condemnation case relates solely to damages and compensation to which a landowner is entitled, and the amount of the verdict of the jury is not questioned on appeal, assignments of error relating to the correctness of jury charges, jury arguments, and rulings on evidence which deal

1975The argued assignments of error (except 4 and 5) question the correctness of certain jury charges, argument of counsel and rulings on the admission and exclusion of evidence, all of which relate to damages and compensation. “[2] In several cases we have said in effect that where the issue involved in the trial of a condemnation case relates solely to damages and compensation to which a landowner is entitled, and the amount of the verdict of the jury is not questioned on appeal, assignments of error relating to the correctness of jury charges, jury arguments, and rulings on evidence which deal

1975The argued assignments of error (except 4 and 5) question the correctness of certain jury charges, argument of counsel and rulings on the admission and exclusion of evidence, all of which relate to damages and compensation. “[2] In several cases we have said in effect that where the issue involved in the trial of a condemnation case relates solely to damages and compensation to which a landowner is entitled, and the amount of the verdict of the jury is not questioned on appeal, assignments of error relating to the correctness of jury charges, jury arguments, and rulings on evidence which deal

1975“For other cases to like effect see Alabama v. Ferguson, supra; Cooper v. Watts, 280 Ala. 236 , 191 So.2d 519 ; Southern Railway Co. v. Edmunds, 280 Ala. 247 , 192 So.2d 451 .

1975“For other cases to like effect see Alabama v. Ferguson, supra; Cooper v. Watts, 280 Ala. 236 , 191 So.2d 519 ; Southern Railway Co. v. Edmunds, 280 Ala. 247 , 192 So.2d 451 .

1975“For other cases to like effect see Alabama v. Ferguson, supra; Cooper v. Watts, 280 Ala. 236 , 191 So.2d 519 ; Southern Railway Co. v. Edmunds, 280 Ala. 247 , 192 So.2d 451 .

1975“For other cases to like effect see Alabama v. Ferguson, supra; Cooper v. Watts, 280 Ala. 236 , 191 So.2d 519 ; Southern Railway Co. v. Edmunds, 280 Ala. 247 , 192 So.2d 451 .

1973In a similar case, Chrisman v. Brooks, 291 Ala. 237 , 279 So.2d 500 , this court said: “Where evidence is heard orally before the trial court, the finding of the court has the effect of a jury’s verdict and will not be disturbed on appeal, unless plainly erroneous, whether in law or equity.

1973In a similar case, Chrisman v. Brooks, 291 Ala. 237 , 279 So.2d 500 , this court said: “Where evidence is heard orally before the trial court, the finding of the court has the effect of a jury’s verdict and will not be disturbed on appeal, unless plainly erroneous, whether in law or equity.

1972Anderson v. Smith, 274 Ala. 302 , 148 So.2d 243 (1962): Finding no reversible error in the argued assignments of error, the decree of the trial court is due to be affirmed.

1972Anderson v. Smith, 274 Ala. 302 , 148 So.2d 243 (1962): Finding no reversible error in the argued assignments of error, the decree of the trial court is due to be affirmed.

1968The assignments of error which are not argued in appellants’ brief “will be deemed waived and will not be considered by the court.” Supreme Court Rule 9; Cook v. Latimer, 279 Ala. 294 , 184 So.2d 807 .

1968The assignments of error which are not argued in appellants’ brief “will be deemed waived and will not be considered by the court.” Supreme Court Rule 9; Cook v. Latimer, 279 Ala. 294 , 184 So.2d 807 .

1958The argued assignments of error relate to the trial court’s action in giving certain written charges requested by the defendant and in overruling those grounds of plaintiff’s motion for new trial which took the point, in effect, that the verdict “is not sustained by the great preponderance of the evidence.” § 276, Title 7, Code 1940; Parker v. Hayes Lumber Co., 221 Ala. 73 , 127 So. 504 .

1958The argued assignments of error relate to the trial court’s action in giving certain written charges requested by the defendant and in overruling those grounds of plaintiff’s motion for new trial which took the point, in effect, that the verdict “is not sustained by the great preponderance of the evidence.” § 276, Title 7, Code 1940; Parker v. Hayes Lumber Co., 221 Ala. 73 , 127 So. 504 .

1955Co. v. Baum [ 249 Ala. 442 , 31 So.2d 366 ], supra; Birmingham Electric Co. v. Lawson, 239 Ala. 236 , 194 So. 659 ; Cobb v. Malone, supra; Sorrell v. Lindsey, 247 Ala. 630 , 25 So.2d 725 .” We do not think the amount of the verdict, $15,000, was excessive under the principles stated supra. Having treated all the argued assignments of error, the application for rehearing is granted and the judgment of the lower court should be and is affirmed.

1955Co. v. Baum [ 249 Ala. 442 , 31 So.2d 366 ], supra; Birmingham Electric Co. v. Lawson, 239 Ala. 236 , 194 So. 659 ; Cobb v. Malone, supra; Sorrell v. Lindsey, 247 Ala. 630 , 25 So.2d 725 .” We do not think the amount of the verdict, $15,000, was excessive under the principles stated supra. Having treated all the argued assignments of error, the application for rehearing is granted and the judgment of the lower court should be and is affirmed.

1955Co. v. Baum [ 249 Ala. 442 , 31 So.2d 366 ], supra; Birmingham Electric Co. v. Lawson, 239 Ala. 236 , 194 So. 659 ; Cobb v. Malone, supra; Sorrell v. Lindsey, 247 Ala. 630 , 25 So.2d 725 .” We do not think the amount of the verdict, $15,000, was excessive under the principles stated supra. Having treated all the argued assignments of error, the application for rehearing is granted and the judgment of the lower court should be and is affirmed.

1955Co. v. Baum [ 249 Ala. 442 , 31 So.2d 366 ], supra; Birmingham Electric Co. v. Lawson, 239 Ala. 236 , 194 So. 659 ; Cobb v. Malone, supra; Sorrell v. Lindsey, 247 Ala. 630 , 25 So.2d 725 .” We do not think the amount of the verdict, $15,000, was excessive under the principles stated supra. Having treated all the argued assignments of error, the application for rehearing is granted and the judgment of the lower court should be and is affirmed.

1955Co. v. Baum [ 249 Ala. 442 , 31 So.2d 366 ], supra; Birmingham Electric Co. v. Lawson, 239 Ala. 236 , 194 So. 659 ; Cobb v. Malone, supra; Sorrell v. Lindsey, 247 Ala. 630 , 25 So.2d 725 .” We do not think the amount of the verdict, $15,000, was excessive under the principles stated supra. Having treated all the argued assignments of error, the application for rehearing is granted and the judgment of the lower court should be and is affirmed.

1955Co. v. Baum [ 249 Ala. 442 , 31 So.2d 366 ], supra; Birmingham Electric Co. v. Lawson, 239 Ala. 236 , 194 So. 659 ; Cobb v. Malone, supra; Sorrell v. Lindsey, 247 Ala. 630 , 25 So.2d 725 .” We do not think the amount of the verdict, $15,000, was excessive under the principles stated supra. Having treated all the argued assignments of error, the application for rehearing is granted and the judgment of the lower court should be and is affirmed.