Case ID: ala_160/html/0287-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "McCLELLAN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hoven v. Gewin, et al.
    
    
      Ejectment.
    
    (Decided May 24, 1909.
    49 South. 676.)
    
      Appeal and Error; Reviejo; Eero Trial. — Unless the evidence plainly and palpably supports the verdict, the granting of a new trial by the trial court will not be reversed on appeal.
    Appeal from Clarke Circuit Court.
    Heard before Hon. Thomas W. Davis, Special Judge.
    Ejectment by Zedora Hoven against John Gewin and others. From an order granting a new trial Hoven appeals.
    Affirmed.
    R. W. Stoutz, for appellant.
    Counsel discusses the evidence and reviews the authorities, and insists that the court erred in granting a new trial.
    John S. Graham and A. L. McLeod, for appellee.—
    Counsel review the testimony and the history of the case, and insist that the court properly granted a new trial.
   McCLELLAN, J.

The general status involved in this action of ejectment may be found set forth in Bolen v. Hoven, 143 Ala. 652, 39 South. 379; Id., 150 Ala. 448, 43 South. 736. The plaintiff here appeals from an order granting a new trial.

The rule is that this court will not reverse the court granting a new trial, unless the evidence “plainly and palpably supports the verdict.” — Merrill v. Brantley, 133 Ala. 537, 31 South. 847. One of the contested issues in this case was whether the land sued for was the land descending to plaintiff from Odosia Stringer, nee Walker, plaintiff’s mother. Much testimony was introduced tending to support the plaintiff’s contention; while, on the other hand, there was much testimony to the effect that the land in suit was not the land to which plaintiff was entitled as the only heir of her mother. The question presented to us is one purely of fact. We have carefully read the entire testimony, and after so doing we cannot say that the trial court erred in its action in ordering a new trial.

The judgment is affirmed.

Dowdell, C. J., and Simpson and Mayfield, JJ., concur.