Case ID: ala_204/html/0192-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "THOMAS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(85 South. 461)
    BICKLEY v. MURDOCK.
    (8 Div. 245.)
    (Supreme Court of Alabama.
    April 15, 1920.)
    Appeal and error &wkey;> 1008(1) — Finding of fact by court on oral evidence has force of verdict.
    Where judgment was based on the decision of a question of fact, and where the witnesses were examined orally before the court and the judge had the benefit of observing their manner and demeanor and a better opportunity of passing upon the credibility of the testimony than the appellate court, the finding of the court has the force of a verdict by a jury.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; Robert C. Brickell, Judge.
    Assumpsit by A. J. Murdock against W. H. Bickley to recover commissions on the sale of real property. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Acts. 1911, p. 450, § 6.
    Affirmed.
    The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion of the court.
    Spragins & Speake, of Huntsville, for appellant.
    Counsel discuss the evidence, with the insistence that the court rendered an improper judgment; but they cite no authorities in support of same.
    R. E. Smith and C. L. Watts, both of Huntsville, for appellee.
    Counsel discuss the evidence, but cite no authority.
   THOMAS, J.

The suit was for commissions on sales of real property. The judgment was for plaintiff. No question of law is presented. The decision must rest on a question of fact. The record shows that the witnesses were examined orally before the court, and the judge had the benefit of observing their- manner and demeanor and the better opportunity to pass upon the credibility of the testimony. His finding has the force of a verdict by a jury. Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403, 72 South. 52; Finney v. Studebaker Corp., 196 Ala. 422, 72 South. 54; Andrews v. Grey, 74 South. 62; Cole v. A. G. S. R. R. Co., 201 Ala. 193, 77 South. 719; Veid v. Roberts, 200 Ala. 576, 76 South. 934; Ray v. Watkins, 203 Ala. 683, 85 South. 25.

The court had the witnesses before him, and after hearing and considering their testimony found that plaintiff had brought' about the sales in question and was entitled to the commissions in the sum indicated. There are tendencies of the evidence to support such judgment. Having examined the record,- we are of opinion that the judgment rendered should be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and MeCLELLAN and SOMERVILLE, JJ., concur. 
      
       199 Ala. 152,