Court Opinion

ID: 9825525
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:17:58.337732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:56.797464
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
The court’s principal purpose in making this slight extension to its opinion, formerly rendered in this case, is to say that the expressions used in same with reference to the number of assignments of error made by appellant were not intended as a criticism of counsel, but were meant to be by way of helpful suggestion. The rule adverted to by counsel, laid down in the ease of Wheeler et al. v. Fuller, 4 Ala. App. 532, 58 So. 792, was expressly overruled by the Supreme Court in Cahaba Coal Co. v. Elliott, 183 Ala. 298, 62 So. 808, and it occurred to us that *622assignments made' in accordance with what was said in the Cahaba Coal Company Case would simplify the labor of both the counsel and the court.
Counsel for appellant, on this application, renew their argument that the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to withdraw the case from the jury and order a mistrial because of certain remarks of plaintiffs counsel in their hearing. We adhere to what we have already said in this regard, with the additional observation that-the case of Tenn. River Nav. Co. v. Walls, 209 Ala. 320, 96 So. 266, presents, in many respects, a similar situation, and seems „ an authority for our holding.
The othqr questions dealt with do not impress us as presenting a cause for the reversal of the case, and the application is overruled. <
Overruled.