# Wainwright v. Anderton

> Supreme Court of Alabama · January 24, 1929 · 218 Ala. 623

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3245971

## Case

- **Full name:** Wainwright v. Anderton.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** January 24, 1929
- **Citations:** 218 Ala. 623; 119 So. 861; 1929 Ala. LEXIS 23
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Thomas
- **Judges:** Thomas, Anderson, Sayre, Brown
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3245971

## Opinion text

THOMAS, J.
The appeal is from an order granting a new trial where the evidence was in sharp conflict. That ruling and judgment was by the judge, who heard the oral examination of the witnesses. The same inference and-presumption in favor of this ruling or action in granting the new trial is indulged as in a case where the motion for a new trial is refused. Walker v. St. Louis-San F. R. Co., 214 Ala. 492 , 108 So. 388 ; Ex parte Landers, 214 Ala. 20 , 106 So. 225 ; Cobb v. Malone, 92 .Ala. 630, 9 So. 738 ; Nobles v. Bank of Eclectic, 217 Ala. 124 , 115 So. 13 .
We have carefully examined the evidence, and it is “not s.o manifestly and palpably in favor of the verdict” as to “justify reversal of the order granting a new trial.” Smith v. Tombigbee & Northern R. Co., 141 Ala. 332 , 37 So. 389 ; Ex parte Landers, 214 Ala. 20 , 106 So. 225 .
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE and BROWN, JJ., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3245971. Public record. Not legal advice.