Case ID: ala-app_17/html/0216-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BRICKEN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(84 South. 547)
    JACKSON v. HAGIN.
    (7 Div. 605.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    Oct. 28, 1919.)
    Appeal and Error t&wkey;1011(l) — Conclusion of Court on Conflicting Evidence not Disturbed.
    The conclusion of the trial court sitting wi.hout a jury will not be disturbed on appeal, unless contrary to the great weight of the evidence, so, where the evidence was in conflict, the trial court’s conclusion is, binding.
    &wkey;>For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County; W. J. Martin, Judge.
    Assumpsit by J. T. Hagin against S. A. Jackson. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    The contest was over whether the note was given to take up a note due by the defendants to the First National Bank, or whether it was given in consideration of the sale of beer and whisky to one of the defendants by tbe plaintiff, which was unlawful in that county at that time. The court rendered judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant excepted to the rendition of the judgment.
    J. S. Franklin, of Gadsden, for appellant.
    The consideration of the note was rendered void by the sale of intoxicants. 22 Me. 48S, 39 Am. Dee. 592; 23 Cyc. 239, and note 13.
    O. B. Roper, of Gadsden, for appellee.
    The plea was not sustained by tbe evidence. 131 Ala. 642, 31 South. S59; 136 Ala. 571, 33 South. 552, 96 Am. St. Rep. 43.
   BRICKEN, J.

This was a suit upon a promissory note, and was tried by the 'court without the intervention of a jury. Judgment was rendered by the court in favor of appellee, plaintiff in the court below, and the rendition of this judgment is made the basis of the assignment of error.

The evidence in this case as shown by the record was in sharp conflict. The court below saw and heard the witnesses, and had the opportunity of observing their demeanor on the stand and in considering and weighing the evidence. The evidence warranted the court in its conclusion, and the judgment of the court will remain undisturbed; the rule being, not to disturb tbe conclusion of the trial court, sitting without a jury, unless the conclusion reached is plainly contrary to the great weight of the evidence. Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403, 72 South. 52; Finney v. Studebaker Corp., 196 Ala. 422, 72 South. 54.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Affirmed.