Bonie v. Griffin
Decision Date | 26 May 1949 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 358. |
Citation | 40 So.2d 870,252 Ala. 299 |
Parties | BONIE v. GRIFFIN. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Forest A. Christian, of Foley, for appellant.
Hubert M. Hall, of Bayminette, for appellee.
The complaint as originally filed by Fred Griffin (appellee) against G. H. Bonie (appellant contained one count designated as count 1, which sought recovery on a promissory note executed by G. H. Bonie to Fred Griffin. Without objection counts 2 and 3 were added by amendment and these counts were common counts respectively for money paid and for money due by account. The pleas of the defendant were the general issue, payment and set-off. There was verdict and judgment for the plaintiff both on count 1 and also on counts 2 and 3. Hence this appeal.
On March 15, 1946, G. H. Bonie, who is a contractor, entered into a written contract with Fred Griffin whereby G. H. Bonie agreed to erect a building on the property of Fred Griffin in Loxley, Alabama, for the sum of $32,749.30. It was stipulated that the building was to be constructed according to drawings and specifications attached to the contract and that the contractor was to furnish all labor and material for completion of the contract.
The contract contains the following provision: .
On July 19, 1946, G. H. Bonie executed to Fred Griffin the note sued on in count 1. The note is for $3,000 and was payable on September 16, 1946, with interest at 8 percent from date. According to the defendant the note was made to evidence a loan made to supply him with advances under the contract to the extent of $3,000 and to help him to fulfill the contract. According to the plaintiff the note was made to evidence a loan of $3,000 which was made by the plaintiff to the defendant and which was entirely independent of the contract.
According to tendencies of evidence G. H. Bonie failed to complete his contract and it was necessary for Fred Griffin to take over the contract and complete the building in an amount approximately $11,000 in excess of the written contract. This is the claim on which counts 2 and 3 are based. According to the defendant he was asked to do work in addition to that required by the contract and complied with the request. According to the defendant these additional items aggregated approximately $13,215.31 and these are the items on which the defendant based his plea of set off. The court refused to allow proof of this alleged set-off on the theory that there was no compliance with the provisions of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Southern Metal Treating Co. v. Goodner
... ... Bonnie v. Griffin, 252 ... Page 278 ... Ala. 299, 40 So.2d 870. There was no error in admitting the testimony in question for these purposes ... ...
-
Young v. United States
...of that theory." See also T. R. Miller Mill Co. v. Johns, 37 Ala.App. 477, 75 So.2d 670 (Ala.Ct. of Apps.1954); Bonie v. Griffin, 252 Ala. 299, 40 So.2d 870 (Ala.1949); and Spencer v. Richardson, 234 Ala. 323, 175 So. 278 In addition to the foregoing, we find the following pertinent stateme......
- West v. West
-
Robertson v. Duncan
...The trial court cited C.F. Halstead Contractor, Inc. v. Dirt, Inc., 294 Ala. 644, 648, 320 So. 2d 657, 660 (1975), and Bonie v. Griffin, 252 Ala. 299, 40 So. 2d 870 (1949), which discuss the oral modification of a construction contract when the evidence supports the conclusion that the part......