Court Opinion

ID: 9825326
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:36:47.583735+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:41.857100
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
AVe have again read the evidence in this case and see no reason for changing our opinion as to the ruling of the trial court on the motion for new trial, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evidence. The evidence was in conflict. The jury saw the witnesses, heard them testify, and had the advantage, in passing upon the questions of fact, of seeing and hearing the witnesses under cross-examination. The judge who tried the case was in closer touch than we, and he refused to disturb the verdict. We adhere to our former ruling.
It is urged in brief that the court erred in admitting in evidence a written contract between Kirkland and A1 Parker Realty Company, the promoting company under which plaintiff was working in conjunction with defendant and others. We think this contract had a bearing on the dealings between plaintiff and defendant; but even so this contract was introduced in evidence without objection on the part of defendant.
It is again insisted that this court erred in its ruling on .the trial court’s ruling, overruling defendant’s objection to interrogatory 12 to the witness Quarles. Again we say there is no reference in the assignment of error directing the court to the ruling of the court as it appears in the transcript, nor was there such in the original brief. In the brief on rehearing the page of the transcript is designated, and we have examined .the assignment.
Objections to particular interrogatories must be made before they are answered by the witness. Failing in this the objection comes too late and should be disregarded. Kyle v. Bostick, 10 Ala. 589; Towns v. Alford, 2 Ala. 378; Alabama, etc., Ry. Co. v. Bailey, 112 Ala. 167, 20 So. 313; Mississippi Lumber Co. v. Smith & Co., 152 Ala. 537, 44 So. 475.
There was no motion to exclude the answer, which might have been granted if such answer was illegal for any reason assigned.
Other questions are either waived or are without injurious effect.
Application is overruled.