Legal Opinion
Orman v. Scharnagel
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided October 18, 1923No. 8 Div. 564PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.
There was no motion for a new trial presenting for review the sufficiency of the evidence, and the scintilla rule obtains. Howell v. Howell, 98 South. 630; Patterson v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 202 Ala. 583, 81 South. 85; Penticost v. Massey, 202 Ala. 681, 81 South. 637; Id. 206 Ala. 411, 90 South. 866.
There being evidence from which a reasonable inference may be drawn adverse to defendants, the affirmative charges requested by them were properly refused. McMillan v. Aiken, 205 Ala. 35, 88 South. 135.
It is unnecessary that there be a consideration passing to the surety iu the contract, if there is…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- McMillan v. AikenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1920
- Christie v. DurdenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1921
- Penticost v. MasseySupreme Court of Alabama · 1919
- Pettit's Adm'r v. Pettit's DistributeesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1858
- Moog v. StrangSupreme Court of Alabama · 1881
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Birmingham Electric Co. v. HowardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1948
- Arrick v. FanningAlabama Court of Appeals · 1950
- Norwood Hospital v. BrownSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- Baker v. Citizens Bank of GuntersvilleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1968
- Louisville & N. R. Co. v. SteversonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.