Campbell Motor Co. v. Brewer

Citation101 So. 748,212 Ala. 50
Decision Date23 October 1924
Docket Number8 Div. 682.
PartiesCAMPBELL MOTOR CO. v. BREWER.
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; Chas. P. Almon, Judge.

Action on common counts by J. S. Brewer against the Campbell Motor Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Acts 1911, p. 449, § 6. Affirmed.

Bradshaw & Barnett, of Florence, for appellant.

A. A. Williams, of Florence, for appellee.

THOMAS, J.

Though the buyer's order declared upon appears to be a carbon copy, rather than the original, no error was committed in admitting it in evidence. Plaintiff testified that it was given to him at the time for the original. It was not necessary to account for the original of such order. For the purposes of the suit, under the foregoing evidence, it was the original, given and accepted as such.

There was no error in permitting the witness to testify that "Mr. Bond was working there" with defendant, and said he was its agent at the time the contract was entered into. Roberts & Sons v. Williams et al., 198 Ala. 290, 73 So. 502. Where the fact of agency rests in parol or is to be inferred from conduct of the principal, and there is evidence tending to show agency, the acts and declarations of the agent become admissible. This is a different case to Eubanks v. Anniston Merc. Co., 171 Ala. 488, 55 So. 98, where the husband sought to bind his wife by a declaration of his agency to purchase a stock of goods.

The suit was not upon the notes for deferred payments on the car. It was a collateral inquiry as to the payee of the notes that was properly permitted by parol. It was also material and competent to ask the witness to state whether or not said notes were presented for payment, and by whom. However, the question was not answered.

The statement of the ground of refusal of defendant to comply with the contract of sale was material, and no error intervened in the statement of the witness that the contract was not executed because of the failure to agree to pay interest on the deferred payments.

There was no error shown to have been committed on the trial, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C.J., and SOMERVILLE and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Sovereign Camp, W.O.W. v. Hoomes
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 25 d4 Abril d4 1929
    ...... such as mutilation and change, are primary evidence. Campbell Motor Co. v. Brewer, 212 Ala. 50, 101 So. 748; Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co. v. McCree, . ......
  • Adler v. Miller
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 7 d4 Junho d4 1928
    ...... Co., 210 Ala. 582, 98 So. 730; Langham v. Jackson,. Supt., 211 Ala. 416, 100 So. 757; Campbell Co. v. Brewer, 212 Ala. 50, 101 So. 748; Liverpool Co. v. McCree, 213 Ala. 534, 105 So. 901; L. & ......
  • Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co., Limited, of England v. McCree
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 15 d4 Outubro d4 1925
    ......There was no question of primary. and secondary evidence presented by the facts. Campbell. Motor Co. v. Brewer, 212 Ala. 50, 101 So. 748;. Burnett Cigar Co. v. Art Wall Paper Co., 164 ......
  • Blaine v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 19 d2 Dezembro d2 1978
    ...other duplicate original. London & Liverpool v. Globe Ins. Co., etc. v. McGree, 213 Ala. 534, 105 So. 901 (1925); Campbell Motor Co. v. Brewer, 212 Ala. 50, 101 So. 748 (1924); Robinson v. State, 38 Ala.App. 315, 82 So.2d 815 (1955). In addition, the particular instrument was "merely incide......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT