Adams Hardware Co. v. Wimbish, 5 Div. 695
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | THOMAS, J. |
| Citation | 201 Ala. 547,78 So. 901 |
| Parties | ADAMS HARDWARE CO. v. WIMBISH. |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 695 |
| Decision Date | 25 April 1918 |
78 So. 901
201 Ala. 547
ADAMS HARDWARE CO.
v.
WIMBISH.
5 Div. 695
Supreme Court of Alabama
April 25, 1918
Appeal from Circuit Court, Chambers County; S.L. Brewer, Judge.
Suit by the Adams Hardware Company against H.A. Wimbish. Verdict and judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Transferred from the Court of Appeals under Act April 18, 1911, p. 449, § 6. Affirmed.
See, also 78 So. 902.
Strother & Hines, of Lafayette, for appellant.
N.D. Denson & Sons, of Opelika, for appellee.
THOMAS, J.
This suit was based on a promissory note made by the defendant for the purchase price of a light plant. Defendant interposed special pleas of breach of warranty, to which plaintiff replied that:
"The contract with the defendant is in writing, and the warranty in said written contract is the only warranty as to said lighting plant that was made by the plaintiffs, or by any person authorized to bind the plaintiffs."
There was verdict and judgment for the defendant.
The plaintiff introduced in evidence the defendant's note, and rested. This note did not contain the written warranty the subject of plaintiff's replication. Defendant Wimbish, as a witness in his own behalf, was asked, "I will ask you, Mr. Wimbish, what the agent said to you at the time about the plant being installed in a workmanlike manner?" to which question objection was made, on the ground that the contract was in writing. No exception to the adverse ruling of the court was taken. The witness was then asked, over the plaintiff's objection: "After it was put up, I will ask you how it operated?" No grounds for this objection were assigned; being a mere general objection, it presented nothing for review. The evidence was not manifestly illegal and irrelevant, and incapable of being rendered admissible in connection with other evidence. Rule 33, Code of 1907, vol. 2, p. 1527; Sanders v. Knox, 57 Ala. 80, 83; Bates v. Morris, 101 Ala. 282, 13 So. 138; Bufford v. Little, 159 Ala. 300, 48 So. 697; Knight v. State, 160 Ala. 58, 49 So. 764; Rutledge v. Rowland, 161 Ala. 114, 49 So. 461; Stowers Furniture Co. v. Brake, 158 Ala. 639, 48 So. 89; Wallis v. Rhea, 10 Ala. 451 (and citations to first headnote); Ingles v. State, 13 Ala.App. 184, 68 So. 583; Salmon v. Salmon, 13 Ala.App. 510, 69 So. 304; Stamps v. Thomas, 7 Ala.App. 622, 62 So. 314.
In regard to permitting the defendant to ask, "What was said by Mr. Horne?" (plaintiff's agent), and the witness to reply,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burnett & Bean v. Miller, 5 Div. 783
...duly excepted. The objection to the latter question was general, and the ruling is not for review. Adams Hdw. Co. v. Wimbish, 201 Ala. 548, 78 So. 901. However, the question called for competent evidence. Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. Affirmed. ......
-
Alabama Machinery & Supply Co. v. Roquemore, 3 Div. 498
...assigned. B.R., L. & P. Co. v. Saxon, 179 Ala. 136, 59 So. 584; Rutledge v. Rowland, 161 Ala. 114, 49 So. 461; Adams Hdw. Co. v. Wimbish, 201 Ala. 547, 78 So. 901. The rescission of the contract sought to be shown by plaintiff's letter of July 10, 1919, to George B. Wragg Furniture Company,......
-
Bush v. State, 4 Div. 790.
...illegal or irrelevant, and incapable of being rendered admissible in connection with other evidence. Adams Hardware Co. v. Wimbish, 201 Ala. 547, 78 So. 901, and cases cited. See, also, Washington v. State, 106 Ala. 58, 17 So. 546; Gunter v. State, 111 Ala. 23, 28, 20 So. 632, 56 Am. St. Re......
-
Moulton v. State, 4 Div. 863. [*]
...illegal and irrelevant, and incapable of being rendered admissible in connection with other evidence. Adams Hardware Co. v. Wimbish, 201 Ala. 547, 78 So. 901; McKinley Music Co. v. Lewis, 17 Ala. App. 370, 84 So. 858. There was no merit in the objection to the testimony of the witness, Will......
-
Burnett & Bean v. Miller, 5 Div. 783
...duly excepted. The objection to the latter question was general, and the ruling is not for review. Adams Hdw. Co. v. Wimbish, 201 Ala. 548, 78 So. 901. However, the question called for competent evidence. Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. Affirmed. ......
-
Alabama Machinery & Supply Co. v. Roquemore, 3 Div. 498
...assigned. B.R., L. & P. Co. v. Saxon, 179 Ala. 136, 59 So. 584; Rutledge v. Rowland, 161 Ala. 114, 49 So. 461; Adams Hdw. Co. v. Wimbish, 201 Ala. 547, 78 So. 901. The rescission of the contract sought to be shown by plaintiff's letter of July 10, 1919, to George B. Wragg Furniture Company,......
-
Bush v. State, 4 Div. 790.
...illegal or irrelevant, and incapable of being rendered admissible in connection with other evidence. Adams Hardware Co. v. Wimbish, 201 Ala. 547, 78 So. 901, and cases cited. See, also, Washington v. State, 106 Ala. 58, 17 So. 546; Gunter v. State, 111 Ala. 23, 28, 20 So. 632, 56 Am. St. Re......
-
Moulton v. State, 4 Div. 863. [*]
...illegal and irrelevant, and incapable of being rendered admissible in connection with other evidence. Adams Hardware Co. v. Wimbish, 201 Ala. 547, 78 So. 901; McKinley Music Co. v. Lewis, 17 Ala. App. 370, 84 So. 858. There was no merit in the objection to the testimony of the witness, Will......