From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mills Lumber Co. v. Hull

Supreme Court of Alabama
Jan 15, 1931
131 So. 902 (Ala. 1931)

Summary

In Mills Lumber Co. v. Hull, 222 Ala. 229, 131 So. 902, the plaintiff in the trial court made a motion for a new trial, which was granted upon the ground of the disqualification of certain jurors.

Summary of this case from Birmingham Electric Co. v. Yoast

Opinion

5 Div. 75.

January 15, 1931.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Tallapoosa County; W. B. Bowling, Judge.

Jacob A. Walker, of Opelika, and J. Sanford Mullins, of Alexander City, for appellant.

Parties in interest are charged with the duty of examining jurors on their voir dire for ground of challenge, and, failing to do so, cannot complain on motion for a new trial. Batson v. State, 216 Ala. 275, 113 So. 300; Boykin v. State, 23 Ala. App. 516, 128 So. 124.

Jas. W. Strother, of Dadeville, for appellee.

Disqualification of a juror, not known to the injured party, constitutes ground for a new trial. City of Birmingham v. Lane, 210 Ala. 252, 97 So. 728.


The appeal is from the granting of motion for a new trial. If any proper ground of the motion will support the judgment granting a new trial, that action of the court will be sustained, although the trial court may have rested its action on an improper ground. Jones v. Jefferson County, 206 Ala. 13, 89 So. 174; Choate v. A. G. S. R. Co., 170 Ala. 590, 54 So. 507; City of Birmingham v. Lane, 210 Ala. 252, 97 So. 728; Thomas v. Carter, 218 Ala. 55, 59, 117 So. 634; Kilby Car Co. v. Georgia Casualty Co., 209 Ala. 356, 96 So. 319.

Disqualifications of jurors not known to the injured parties and deemed by the trial court to be a good ground for a new trial were held not reversible in City of Birmingham v. Lane, 210 Ala. 252, 97 So. 728, and authorities cited. See, also, Taylor v. State (Ala. Sup.) 131 So. 236.1 We will not reverse the trial court for granting the motion on this ground, though the parties had the right to test the jury on voir dire. Batson v. State, 216 Ala. 275, 113 So. 300.

The judgment of the circuit court is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and BROWN and FOSTER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mills Lumber Co. v. Hull

Supreme Court of Alabama
Jan 15, 1931
131 So. 902 (Ala. 1931)

In Mills Lumber Co. v. Hull, 222 Ala. 229, 131 So. 902, the plaintiff in the trial court made a motion for a new trial, which was granted upon the ground of the disqualification of certain jurors.

Summary of this case from Birmingham Electric Co. v. Yoast
Case details for

Mills Lumber Co. v. Hull

Case Details

Full title:MILLS LUMBER CO. v. HULL

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Jan 15, 1931

Citations

131 So. 902 (Ala. 1931)
222 Ala. 229

Citing Cases

Sullivan v. Alabama Power Co.

Louisville N. R. Co. v. Scott, 232 Ala. 284, 290 (20), 167 So. 572. The action of the trial court is…

Morris v. Zac Smith Stationery Co.

Birmingham Electric Co. v. Yoast, 256 Ala. 673, 57 So.2d 103, 30 A.L.R.2d 907. A party in either a civil or a…