Alabama Foundry & Machine Works v. Dallas

• Decision Date: 18 December 1900
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Parties: ALABAMA FOUNDRY & MACHINE WORKS v. DALLAS.

29 So. 459

127 Ala. 513

ALABAMA FOUNDRY & MACHINE WORKS v. DALLAS.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 18, 1900

Appeal from circuit court, Madison county; H. C. Speake, Judge.

Action by the Alabama Foundry & Machine Works against Trevanion B Dallas. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

This was an action on a promissory note which was given by the defendant to the plaintiff in payment of his subscription to the capital stock of the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded the general issue and several special pleas. To all of the special pleas, except pleas numbered 8, 10, and 11, demurrers were sustained. The cause was tried upon issue joined upon these pleas. The facts of the case necessary to an understanding of the decision on the present appeal are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The cause was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, and upon the hearing of all the evidence the court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff made a motion for a new trial, which motion was overruled.

R. W Walker, for appellant.

Humes Sheffey & Speake, for appellee.

TYSON J.

This suit is brought upon a promissory note given for subscription for stock in the plaintiff corporation. The cause was tried by the court, without the intervention of a jury, upon the issues presented by pleas numbered 8, 10, and 11. There are only two matters presented to us for consideration and decision. The first of these is whether the evidence tended to support the averment of either of the pleas. The eighth plea alleges that: "At the time of execution of the note sued on, J. B. Harrison, who was acting for plaintiff, and authorized to bind it in the premises, in order to induce defendant to subscribe for stock in the plaintiff corporation and to execute the note sued on, represented to defendant that he, together with J. R. Stevens, O. B. Patton, W. I Wellman, and several others, had purchased for the plaintiff a foundry and machine shop at Decatur, Alabama, paying $35,000 therefor. Defendant alleges that said statements and representations of said Harrison, as plaintiff's agent were untrue, and said foundry and machine shop at Decatur did not cost said Harrison and associates $35,000, or nearly that amount. Defendant was not aware that said representations and statements of said Harrison were untrue at the time of the execution of said note, but relied thereon, and by reason thereof was induced to subscribe for stock in plaintiff corporation and execute the note in suit. And defendant pleads said fraudulent representations of plaintiff's agent in bar of this suit." The evidence is without dispute that Harrison was the president and general manager of the plaintiff corporation at the date of the execution of the note sued on, and, as agent of the plaintiff, conducted the negotiations for the sale of the stock to the defendant which resulted in the giving of the note, which note was delivered to him for the plaintiff. Halsey testified: That in the latter part of December, 1897, he went to Nashville, Tenn., with Harrison, and at his request introduced him to the defendant. That Harrison proposed to sell the defendant this stock, and made the statement that Stevens, Patton, Wellman, Nolen, and Greenleaf were stockholders in the plaintiff company, and that it had what is known as the "Ivens & Son Machine Shops," at Decatur, and that they had a hay press, with...