Baldwin Alabama Truck Farms Co. v. Strode
| Decision Date | 20 November 1913 |
| Citation | 184 Ala. 213,63 So. 521 |
| Parties | BALDWIN ALABAMA TRUCK FARMS CO. v. STRODE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Baldwin County; A.E. Gamble, Judge.
Action by the Baldwin Alabama Truck Farms Company against J.H Strode. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Sam C Jenkins, of Bay Minette, for appellant.
William S. Anderson, of Bay Minette, and Clarke & Brown, of Mobile for appellee.
Appellant sued appellee on common counts to recover $712.50. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the defendant.
There is nothing in the first, second, and third assignments of error. In fact, the assignments are not apt or appropriate in trials like this. The assignments are as follows:
Judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict of the jury. There was no finding of the facts by the court, no agreed statement of facts, nor objection or exception to the court's entering the judgment which was rendered. Of course any objection would have been unavailing, but none was made. There is nothing for us to review, raised by these assignments of error.
There was abundant evidence to support the verdict and judgment hence there was no error in refusing the affirmative charge to the plaintiff; and each of the other charges as to which error is assigned was properly refused. No one of these charges stated a correct proposition of law, as applied to the facts in this case, to even the undisputed facts. The trial court might well have given the affirmative charge for the defendant. We are unable to find any evidence in this record which would authorize the plaintiff to recover anything from the defendant in this suit. The only verdict and judgment was rendered in this case, which could have been correctly rendered.
The defendant and a number of other persons organized the appellant corporation for the purpose of buying and selling lands. The appellee was one of the promoters and had an option from the Vizard Investment Company to sell a certain tract of land at $12.50 per acre; and this company was organized for the purpose of purchasing this tract of land at this price and upon its formation made the contemplated purchase at the figure named. It was known that appellee had procured this option and that he represented the vendor in the transaction stated. The articles of organization and incorporation so recite.
It was no concern of the corporation that the vendor paid appellee a commission for making the sale. He had the option to sell having made his contract with the vendor before the organization of the appellant corporation was thought of. It was fully understood, when ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McLaney v. Turner
...264 Ala. 339, 87 So.2d 623; Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. McDaniel, 262 Ala. 227, 78 So.2d 290; Baldwin, Alabama Truck Farms v. Strode, 184 Ala. 213, 63 So. 521. Assignments of error 31 and 32 are insufficient in that they do not point out explicitly the parts of the oral charge alleged......
-
Thagard v. Brock
...in the case.' Assignments 7 and 12 are to like effect. Such an assignment of error raises nothing for review. Baldwin Alabama Truck Farms Co. v. Strode, 184 Ala. 213, 63 So. 521; Andrews v. May, 277 Ala. 248, 168 So.2d In Assignments 9 and 10, respondents undertake to assert that the court ......
-
Henry v. Jackson
...unavailing, but none was made. There is nothing for us to review, raised by these assignments of error. Baldwin, Alabama Truck Farms v. Strode, 184 Ala. 213, 63 So. 521. Assignment of error 25 reads as follows: '25. For that the trial court erred in denying plaintiff's motion for a new tria......
-
Stevens v. Walker
...authorities: 14 C. J. § 342; Southwestern Portland Cement Co. v. Latta & Happer (Tex. Civ. App.) 193 S. W. 1115; Baldwin Ala. Truck Farms Co. v. Strode, 184 Ala. 213, 63 So. 522; Central Land Co. v, Obenchain, 92 Va. 130, 22 S. E. 876; Masberg v. Granville, 201 Ala. 5, 75 So, 154; Richardso......