Bridges & Beers v. Miller
Supreme Court of Alabama
IT appears from the record in this canse, that the- defendant in error recovered against the plaintiff at the fall term,. 1840, of the Circuit Cour.t of Mobile, a judgment for the sum of sixteen hundred and thirty-seven dollars ? and at the spring-term, 1841, the plaintiffs moved for a new trial, which being refused, they excepted.
Read the full summary
IT appears from the record in this canse, that the- defendant in error recovered against the plaintiff at the fall term,. 1840, of the Circuit Cour.t of Mobile, a judgment for the sum of sixteen hundred and thirty-seven dollars ? and at the spring-term, 1841, the plaintiffs moved for a new trial, which being refused, they excepted. The bill of exceptions is as follows: “-la-this cause, a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff at the last term of the Circuit Court for Mobile county, and a motion was-made at the said term for a new trial-. Before a decision was-made on the motion, and while it…
1Opinion of the CourtCollier, C. J.
It does not explicitly appear from the-bill of exceptions, that a motion for a new trial was regularly made, and continued at the term of the Court at which the jury *747rendered their verdict in this cause; but conceding such to have been the fact, and we are satisfied, .that the refusal o-f the Judge to entertain the motion at the succeeding term, is not available; •on error. The granting, or refusiúg- a new trial, is a matter within, the discretion of the Court, trying the cause; and however decided, cannot be revised on appeal- or writ of error.— Nor can the refusal to decide upon such a…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Ex parte SchmidtSupreme Court of Alabama · 1878
- Ex Parte WrightSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
- Walker v. HaleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1849
- Hilliard v. CarrSupreme Court of Alabama · 1844
- Crothers v. Ross's DistributeesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1849