Brown v. Grayson

• Decision Date: 01 June 1920
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 700
• Citation: 86 So. 121,17 Ala.App. 463
• Parties: BROWN v. GRAYSON.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

86 So. 121

17 Ala.App. 463

BROWN v. GRAYSON.

8 Div. 700

Court of Appeals of Alabama

June 1, 1920

Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; Robt. C. Brickell, Judge.

Assumpsit by R.N. Grayson against J.S. Brown. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Cooper & Cooper, of Huntsville, for appellant.

Taylor & Watts, of Huntsville, for appellee.

SAMFORD J.

On the trial the bookkeeper of plaintiff testified:

"The entries in that ledger are in my handwriting. I obtained the information from which these entries were made from what we called the daybook. Three copies were made of these entries; two being carbon copies. Two tickets were sent out with the goods, and one was kept by the purchaser and one by the salesman, and one of the two sent to the purchaser was signed by him and returned to the store and kept on file as record, and the entry which is made on the ledger was taken from the copy signed by the purchaser. The entries on the daybook were made by the salesman, and, as I have stated were transferred by me to the ledger. The salesman made the entries on the daybook at the time he made the sale. The books were not preserved, as they were simply kept as a memorandum. The ledger contains the first permanent entries that were made in this transaction."

The plaintiff then, over the objection and exception of defendant, introduced in evidence the account on the ledger down to May 8, 1914. This account began with an item, "Balance $83.84," followed by dates setting forth charges and credits, but no items; the charges simply being designated "Mdse." The evidence in this case does not meet the requirements of Code 1907, § 4003, so as to permit the ledger account to be introduced in evidence. Stewart Bros. v. Harris, Cortner & Co., 6 Ala.App. 518, 60 So. 445; Loveman, Joseph & Loeb v. McQueen (Sup.) 82 So. 530. Whether the courts of this state will ever extend the rule to meet the customs and usages of modern business, as is indicated by Judge Freeman in his note to Union Bank v. Knapp, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 96, 15 Am.Dec. 181, and followed in many cases in other states (the decisions being collated in Loveman, Joseph & Loeb Case, supra), without further legislation on the subject, is to be doubted; but we are sure it will never extend, either by decision or legislation, to ledger accounts, merely indicating totals, made by bookkeepers having no knowledge of the correctness of the transactions between the parties.

All of the questions affecting the liability of the...