Campbell Motor Co. v. Brewer

• Decision Date: 23 October 1924
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 682.
• Citation: Campbell Motor Co. v. Brewer, 212 Ala. 50, 101 So. 748 (Ala. 1924)
• Parties: CAMPBELL MOTOR CO. v. BREWER.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

101 So. 748

212 Ala. 50

CAMPBELL MOTOR CO. v. BREWER.

8 Div. 682.

Supreme Court of Alabama

October 23, 1924

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...