Brown v. Raisin Fertilizer Co.

• Decision Date: 14 November 1899
• Citation: 26 So. 891,124 Ala. 221
• Parties: BROWN ET AL. v. RAISIN FERTILIZER CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

26 So. 891

124 Ala. 221

BROWN ET AL. v. RAISIN FERTILIZER CO.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 14, 1899

Appeal from circuit court, Henry county; J. C. Richardson, Judge.

Action by the Raisin Fertilizer Company against Brown & Oakley, a partnership. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. Reversed.

The Raisin Fertilizer Company brought the present action against the partnership of Brown & Oakley to recover money alleged to be due from defendants to plaintiff on a promissory note which was executed on July 16, 1891, and made payable on October 1, 1891. The defendants pleaded nonassumpsit, and, by several separate pleas, (1) that the consideration for the note sued on was commercial fertilizer sold by plaintiff to defendant, and that said fertilizer was not tagged in the manner required by statute before the sale of the same by plaintiff to defendants; and (2) that at the time of the sale of said fertilizer to defendants the plaintiff had no license authorizing it to sell said fertilizer, as required by the statutes of this state. On the trial of the cause, after the introduction of the contract of sale and the note sued on, it was shown that the consideration of said note was the sale and delivery by the plaintiff to the defendants of a certain quantity of commercial fertilizer. It was further shown by the evidence that at the time of the delivery of said fertilizer to the defendants the bags or packages in which the fertilizer was contained were not tagged in accordance with the requirements of the statute, but that after said sale and delivery the plaintiff shipped to defendants a quantity of said tags, sufficient to tag each bag or package in the manner required by law, and that the defendants tagged said bags or packages before making sale thereof. It was further shown, however, as recited in the bill of exceptions that "there was no agreement between plaintiff and defendants at the time of said sale and delivery whereby the defendants were bound or obligated to attach said tags in behalf of the plaintiff, or as the plaintiff's agents." There was no evidence introduced relating to the issue as to whether or not at the time of the sale the plaintiff had obtained a license to deal in commercial fertilizers as required by law, the facts as stated above being substantially all the evidence introduced in the case. Upon the request of the plaintiff, the court gave the general affirmative charge in its behalf. The defendants duly...