Case ID: ala_184/html/0468-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MAYFIELD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Anderson v. Southern Railway Co.
    
      Setting Out Fire.
    
    (Decided November 13, 1913.
    63 South. 473.)
    
      Appeal and Error; Review; Order (granting New Trial. — Where the evidence was largely circumstantial and the record does not inform upon what ground the motion for a new trial was granted, the order granting a new trial will not be reviewed on appeal.
    Appeal from Payette Circuit Court.
    Heard before Hon. Bernard Harwood.
    Action by William A. Anderson against the Southern Railway Company, for damages for setting out fire. Judgment for plaintiff and on motion of defendant the judgment and verdict was set aside and a new trial ordered, and plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Transferred from the Court of Appeals under the statute in such cases made and provided.
    R. F. Peters, and Rat & Cooner, for appellant.
    The case of Birmingham R. L. & P. Go. v. Taylor, 152 Ala. 105, is almost on all-fours with the present case, and was tried very much as this case was tried, and on the authority of this case the cause should be reversed and remanded.
    Bankhead & Bankhead, for appellant.
    Under the rules of this court as announced in Gobi) v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630, the matters complained of will not be reviewed on appeal.
   MAYFIELD, J.

— This is an appeal from an order and judgment granting a motion for a new trial. Many grounds are assigned in the motion, and we are not informed by the record upon what ground the motion was granted. If on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, or to the great preponderance of the evidence, we are not willing to reverse the action of the trial court. The trial judge had the opportunity of seeing the witnesses and hearing the evidence — of which we are deprived. He therefore acted on some evidence of which, and of the nature of which, we are uninformed. The evidence, it is true, was largely circumstantial; but, under the rules of this court as announced in the case of Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630, 9 South. 738, we are not willing to reverse the ruling granting the motion for a new trial.

Affirmed.

Dowdell, C. J., and Anderson and de Grapfenried, JJ., concur.