Case Title: Curtis White Const. v. Butts & Billingsley

Citation: 473 So. 2d 1040

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1985-06-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
473 So. 2d 1040 (1985)
CURTIS WHITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
v.
BUTTS & BILLINGSLEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
84-61.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
June 21, 1985.
James C. Pino of Mitchell, Green, Pino & Medaris, Alabaster, for appellant.
Tom Radney of Radney & Morris, Alexander City, for appellee.
SHORES, Justice.
This dispute arose out of a paving contract which the plaintiff contends the defendant breached. The trial court, having heard the evidence, found for the defendant. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm the order of the trial court, which is as follows:
"The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a contract whereby the defendant was to perform certain paving work for the plaintiff for the sum of $18,493.00. The work was performed, passed inspection, and the defendant was paid the full consideration. Subsequent to the completion of the work, and the plaintiff's own evidence is in dispute concerning this point, but sometime between two months and eight months, the plaintiff experienced problems in connection *1041 with the defendant's work and called upon the defendant to correct same. On two occasions the defendant responded and attempted to repair the alleged defects; and then abandoned the project. The plaintiff contends that he was injured and damaged as a result of the defendant's breach of contract or breach of warranties in connection with the contract.
The plaintiff on appeal recognizes that it has a heavy burden when it seeks a reversal of an order on the ground that the decision is not supported by the evidence. It is the function of a trial judge sitting as factfinder to decide facts where conflicts in the evidence exist. Such was the case here. The appellate courts do not sit in judgment of the facts, and review the factfinder's determination of facts only to the extent of determining whether it is sufficiently supported by the evidence, that question being one of law. No error of law exists in this case, and where there is evidence to support the decision reached by the factfinder, we must affirm its judgment. Pollard v. Guaranty Pest Control, Inc., 346 So. 2d 953 (Ala.1977); Commercial Contractors, Inc. v. Sumar Contractors, Inc., 293 Ala. 271, 302 So. 2d 88 (1974); First Alabama Bank of Montgomery v. Coker, 408 So. 2d 510 (Ala.1982).
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, JONES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.