BROWN-ROSS SHOE CO. v. ABNEY

(104 So. 288) BROWN-ROSS SHOE CO. v. ABNEY. (8 Div. 157.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. April 21, 1925.) Appeal and error <&wkey;>l005(3) — Order refusing new trial not disturbed, where Issue on conflicting evidence was fairly submitted to jury. Where evidence made a fair issue for jury, which was submitted under full, accurate, clear instructions, order refusing new trial will not be disturbed. Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; Leon McCord, Judge. Suit on account by tbe Brown-Ross Shoe Company against W. H. Abney. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. Street & Bradford, of Guntersville, for appellant. H. G. Bailey, of Boaz, for appellee. [MAJORITY — RICE, J.] RICE, J. Tbis appeal is from a judgment in favor of appellee (defendant) in a suit on account brought by appellant (plaintiff) in the circuit court of Marshall county. The appellant assigns but a single ground of error — the overruling by the trial court of its motion for a new trial. Under the familiar rule laid down in Cobb v. Malone & Collins, 92 Ala. 630, 9 So. 738, wrhicb rule, substantially unchanged, yet prevails in tbis state, we cannot say that the court committed error iu the particular claimed. The evidence made an issue fairly for the jury, which was submitted under full, accurate, and clear instructions by the judge trying the case. There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed. <£=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes