Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

18 Ala. App. 647

94 So 185

Davis v. Stanley

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided October 24, 1922

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1922-10-24

W. Haralson, Judge. Action on account by G. E. Stanley against J. P. Davis. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. The testimony being at entire variance with the complaint, the defendant was entitled to the affirmative charge. 52 Ala. 528; 163 Ala. 562, 50 South. 1023; 115 Ga. 156, 41 S. E. 686.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1922-10-24

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 1953

3 state decisions

101922193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SAMFORD, J.

¶1 The only assignment of error is the court’s refusal to give at the request of defendant the general affirmative charge. The cause was submitted to the jury oil the plea of the general issue, evidence was introduced' without objection, and the court charged the jury defining the issues as made by the evidence.

“In all cases where there is a variance between the allegations and the proof and which could be cured by amendment to the pleading, the trial court will not be put in error for refusing the general' charge predicated upon such variance, unless it appears from the record that the variance was brought to the attention of the trial court by a proper objection to the evidence.” Circuit court rule 34 (175 Ala. xxi).

¶2 The appellant failed to comply with this rule, and on that ground is not entitled to a reversal.

¶3 Let the judgment be affirmed.

¶4 Affirmed.

/18/alaapp/647 · .json · Public domain