Title: Mullinax v. Hufham
Citation: 113 So. 2d 671
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: July 2, 1959

113 So. 2d 671 (1959)
Wilson T. MULLINAX et al. d/b/a Rickwood Motors
v.
Mattie Lee HUFHAM.
MULLINAX et al.
v.
Donald HUFHAM, Pro Aml.
MULLINAX et al.
v.
Francis B. HUFHAM.
6 Div. 195, 196, 197.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
July 2, 1959.
W. B. Fernambucq, Huie, Fernambucq &amp; Stewart, Birmingham, for appellant.
Beddow, Gwin &amp; Embry, Birmingham, for appellees.
COLEMAN, Justice.
This is an appeal in three cases which were submitted to the jury on a single *672 count in each case. By consent, the cases were consolidated and tried together on substantially the same evidence. Plaintiffs are husband, wife, and a minor child suing separately for loss of services, damage to husband's automobile, and personal injuries to wife and child, all arising out of a collision of the automobile, driven by the wife, with a motor vehicle alleged to have been negligently operated or controlled by defendants. There was a jury verdict and judgment for defendants in each case.
The plaintiffs filed a motion for new trial which was granted in each case. From the judgments granting the motion defendants have appealed and have assigned those judgments as error.
The trial court did not specify the ground or grounds on which the motion for new trial was granted. Among others, the motion contained severally the grounds that the verdict is not sustained by the great preponderance of the evidence and that the verdict is contrary to the facts in the case.
In W. M. Templeton &amp; Son v. David, 233 Ala. 616, 173 So. 231, 232, which was an action for damages for injuries to person and property in a motor vehicle collision on a highway, there was verdict for defendant, and from judgment granting plaintiffs' motion for new trial defendant appealed. In affirming the judgment granting the motion, this court said:
See also Webb v. Gay, 241 Ala. 336, 2 So. 2d 775; Lindsay Products Corp. v. Alabama Securities Corp., 247 Ala. 662, 25 So. 2d 852; Cox v. Martin, 250 Ala. 401, 34 So. 2d 463; Martin v. Birmingham Southern R. Co., 250 Ala. 583, 35 So. 2d 339; Ford v. Sellers, 257 Ala. 404, 59 So. 2d 799; Morgan County v. Hart, 260 Ala. 418, 71 So. 2d 278; King v. Skinner, 261 Ala. 9, 72 So. 2d 730; Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. Berger Inv. Co., 264 Ala. 208, 86 So. 2d 282; and Holderfield v. Deen, Ala., 112 So. 2d 448, and authorities there cited.
Appellees have not argued in brief to sustain the trial court on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, nor have appellants insisted to the contrary, but we are not for that reason at liberty to disregard the long established rule of review of judgments which grant new trials.
The evidence has been considered with due care, but for fear its consideration on another trial may be prejudiced thereby, we forego any discussion here. German-American Wholesale Optical Co. v. Rosen, 233 Ala. 105, 106, 170 So. 211; Holderfield v. Deen, supra.
The testimony is in direct conflict as to the manner in which the collision occurred. Plaintiffs' account places liability on defendants, but defendants' version exonerates defendants. This court has said:
Reed v. Thompson, 225 Ala. 381, 382, 143 So. 559; and also:
In the case at bar, we cannot say that the evidence so plainly and palpably supported the verdict as to put the trial court in error for granting a new trial on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence.
Because the action of the trial court must be sustained for the reasons already discussed, we forego determination of the sufficiency of Grounds 6 to 11 of the motion which appellants insist did not justify granting the motion. As to those grounds, appellants state in brief:
In view of appellants' concession, at least arguendo, that the matters complained of in Grounds 6 to 11 of the motion injected error into the proceedings, even if the error was cured, such matters will probably not arise on another trial.
Affirmed.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON, GOODWYN, and MERRILL, JJ., concur.