Babcock v. Reeves

• Decision Date: 07 February 1907
• Citation: 149 Ala. 665,43 So. 21
• Parties: BABCOCK v. REEVES ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

43 So. 21

149 Ala. 665

BABCOCK v. REEVES ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 7, 1907

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; H. A. Pearce, Judge.

Action by L. Reeves and others against H. T. Babcock. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The action was on an injunction bond, conditioned to pay the defendants in the injunction suit all damages and costs which any person may sustain by the suing out of the injunction. After demurrers to the complaint were overruled, the defendant, by way of answer, pleaded the general issue, and specially as follows: "Former adjudication, in that said suit is based on what purports to be an injunction bond executed in accordance with section 788 of the Code 1896 of Alabama, by E. A. Baker, D. A. Baker, and H. T. Babcock on the 18th day of April, 1905, in a cause then pending in the chancery court of said county of Pike, wherein E. A. Baker was complainant, and L. Reeves, R. U. McClure, and Mrs. M. R Sellers were respondents, and that, on the motion of all of said respondents that a bond be executed according to law the chancellor decreed that a bond be executed in said cause in accordance with section 786 of said Code, and that in compliance with said decree complainants executed another bond on the 19th day of June, 1905, which bond was the lawful bond in said cause, and said first-named bond superseded and held for naught. * * * For further plea defendant says that plaintiff is estopped from suing on said bond sued on in this action, because said plaintiff moved the chancery court to dissolve said injunction unless a sufficient and proper bond in accordance with the law should be executed by E. A. Baker the complainant in said injunction suit; that in compliance with said motion the chancellor by decree required said E. A Baker to execute another bond, and that said E. A. Baker in compliance therewith executed another injunction bond, which latter bond took the place and superseded the first bond executed by him." The plaintiff showed that L. Reeves had been active in the defense of the chancery suit, and had employed counsel, who managed the chancery suit from its inception to its conclusion, and that his services were reasonably worth from $50 to $75. At the conclusion of the evidence the defendant requested the following charges Affirmative charge. "If the jury believe from the evidence that J. R. Motes represented both Reeves...