Opinion
3 Div. 964.
November 5, 1931.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; A. E. Gamble, Judge.
Weil, Stakely Cater, of Montgomery, for appellant.
If the facts hypothesized in requested charge 10-A were believed by the jury to be true, from the evidence, these facts constituted a complete defense as a matter of law, and the refusal of said charge was error. McDermott v. Sibert, 218 Ala. 670, 119 So. 682; White Swan Laundry v. Wehrhan, 202 Ala. 87, 99 So. 479; Birmingham S. R. Co. v. Harrison, 203 Ala. 284, 82 So. 534; McGeever v. O'Byrne, 203 Ala. 266, 82 So. 508; Sharp v. Sproat, 111 Kan. 735, 208 P. 613, 26 A.L.R. 1421; Hardie v. Barrett, 257 Pa. 42, 101 A. 75, L.R.A. 1917F, 444; Naglo v. Jones, 115 Kan. 140, 222 P. 116; Sheehan v. Coffey, 205 App. Div. 388, 200 N.Y. S. 55; Harding v. Jesse, 189 Wis. 652, 207 N.W. 706.
Hill, Hill, Whiting, Thomas Rives, of Montgomery, for appellee.
Assignments of error not insisted upon are waived. Wright-Nave Con. Co. v. Alabama F. I. Co., 211 Ala. 89, 99 So. 728; Boyett v. Bradley, 211 Ala. 370, 100 So. 647. Charge 10-A is bad in form for the use of the word "believe" instead of "reasonably satisfied." Birmingham B. R. Co. v. Nelson, 216 Ala. 149, 112 So. 422; Cain v. Skillin, 219 Ala. 228, 121 So. 521, 64 A.L.R. 1022; Alabama L. S. Co. v. Adams, 218 Ala. 647, 119 So. 853; Wallace v. Elliott, 220 Ala. 125, 124 So. 286; Ragland v. Poe, 222 Ala. 548, 133 So. 578. It does not correctly state the law. 2 Blashfield's Ency. Auto Law, 1098; 4 Blashfield's Ency. Auto Law, 1098; Thomas v. Carter, 218 Ala. 55, 117 Ala. 634; Birmingham R. L. P. Co. v. Barranco, 203 Ala. 639, 84 So. 839.
It has been repeatedly ruled by this court that trial courts cannot be put in error for refusing special written instructions requested by the parties, in respect to the degree of conviction in the minds of the jury essential to establish an issue of fact, that are not expressed in the exact and appropriate language of the law, which is that they must be reasonably satisfied from the evidence.
Charge 10-a is faulty in this respect, and was refused without error. Birmingham Belt R. Co. v. Nelson, 216 Ala. 149, 112 So. 422; Cain v. Skillin, 219 Ala. 228, 121 So. 521, 64 A.L.R. 1022; Alabama Lime Stone Co. v. Adams, 218 Ala. 647, 119 So. 853; Wallace v. Elliott, 220 Ala. 125, 124 So. 286.
The assignment predicated on the refusal of said charge is the only one argued and insisted upon, and the others must be treated as waived. Wright-Nave Contracting Co. v. Alabama Fuel Iron Co., 211 Ala. 89, 99 So. 728; Boyette v. Bradley, 211 Ala. 370, 100 So. 647.
Affirmed.
ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.