Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Holcomb v. Steele

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

Decided September 26, 1958Published

1ConcurrenceMcAmis, Presiding Judge

I fully concur in the denial of the writ of mandamus. On the merits, I wish to add as an additional ground of concurrence, the following:

Since the case must be decided on the technical record, we must conclusively presume that every issue under the pleadings was determined on sufficient evidence in favor of Mrs. Holcomb. One issue was whether the medical bills incurred in treating her injuries exceeded the recovery, in which case, under the terms of the contract, that was nothing due as attorney’s fees.

The record shows that this issue was withdrawn from the jury’s consideration “by consent”.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Fletcher v. RussellCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1943
  2. Winn v. WrightCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1944

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API