Mobile O. R. Co. v. Williams

This case has been before this court on several former occasions and is reported. 217 Ala. 707, 114 So. 918; 219 Ala. 238, 121 So. 722; 221 Ala. 402, 129 So. 60. It is earnestly insisted and ably argued, as was done upon the last appeal, that the defendant was due the general affirmative charge because of insufficient proof of negligence on the part of defendant’s agents or servants; that the evidence was merely speculative and conjectural and did not sustain the verdict. This question was fully discussed and dealt with in the last two appeals, and we find no such material change in the…