Court Opinion

ID: 9670558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:22:25.219506+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:05.207317
License: Public Domain

LAWSON, Justice
(dissenting).
I think that Charge 57 might well have been refused because of misleading tendencies, but I cannot agree, after an examination of the entire cause, that the giving of this charge has probably so injuriously affected substantial rights of the appellant Hazel S. Ditsch as to require a reversal of the judgment. Supreme Court Rule 45, Code 1940, Tit. 7, Appendix; Eberdt v. Muller, 240 Wis. 341, 2 N.W.2d 367, 3 N.W.2d 763. If the appellant, Mrs. Hazel S. Ditsch, deemed this charge misleading, an explanatory charge should have been requested. Brown v. Woolverton, 219 Ala. 112, 121 So. 404, 64 A.L.R. 640; Smith v. Lilley, 252 Ala. 425, 41 So.2d 175. I am of the opinion that' the judgment rendered in 6 Div. 252 should be affirmed.
I am authorized to state that Justices FOSTER and STAKELY concur in these views.