Cardon v. Hampton
| Decision Date | 25 May 1926 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 237 |
| Citation | 109 So. 176,21 Ala.App. 438 |
| Parties | CARDON v. HAMPTON. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied June 15, 1926
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cherokee County; W.W. Haralson, Judge.
Action by S.G. Cardon against George Hampton in Justice Court. On appeal to Circuit Court judgment was rendered for defendant and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Hugh Reed, of Center, for appellant.
E.O McCord & Son, of Gadsden, for appellee.
This was a suit on simple account and account stated. The only question presented for the consideration of this court is whether the justice court in which the cause was instituted had jurisdiction in the case. The suit was brought in Center precinct, and the defendant (appellee) resided in Leesburg precinct; both precincts being in Cherokee county. The question was raised in the justice court, and was again presented in the circuit court on appeal. The circuit court ruled that the justice court in which the suit was brought had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause, and accordingly rendered judgment against the plaintiff to which ruling of the court the defendant reserved an exception, and this appeal is from said judgment.
Section 8711 of the Code 1923 provides:
"Unless otherwise provided, no person can be sued out of the precinct of his residence, or that in which the debt was created, or the cause of action arose and all judgments rendered contrary to the provisions of this section shall be null and void."
The facts are that George Hampton lived in Leesburg precinct Cherokee county. Dr. Cardon appellant, lived in Center precinct in the same county. Mr. Hampton called the doctor over the telephone to Mr. Hampton's home. The doctor received the call at his office in Center precinct. Mr. Hampton requested the doctor to come to his home in Leesburg. The doctor responded to the call, and (presumably) rendered (professional) service to Mr. Hampton in Leesburg precinct (the bill of exceptions recites, "The work was done over there at my house; these are the facts of the case").
As stated, the doctor brought suit for his bill in Center precinct, and the defendant insisted by way of a plea to the jurisdiction that the justice court in Center precinct was without jurisdiction, and that he could be sued for this account only in the Leesburg precinct. Also, as stated, the court below, after hearing the evidence, sustained the defendant's contention, and the case is here for review.
The question is: In which precinct was the debt created; in which precinct did the cause of action arise?
When the defendant, Hampton, called the physician over the telephone and requested him to come to his home for the purpose of rendering medical service, the law, in the absence of an agreement as to specified terms, implied a contract by the defendant to pay the physician at his place of business the reasonable value of the service rendered, within a reasonable time after it was rendered.
The appellant contends that in legal effect the defendant constructively appeared at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daggett v. Kansas City Structural Steel Co.
...to the offer conveyed by Baxter was given by Daggett in Missouri, thereby establishing this State as the place of contracting. Cardon v. Hampton, 109 So. 176; 13 C. J. 580, Peak v. International Harvester Co., 194 Mo.App. 128; Crohn v. Travelers Assn., 170 Mo.App. 280; Illinois Fuel Co. v. ......
-
Browning Enterprise v. Rex Iron & Machine
...Fisher Co., Inc., 638 P.2d 847, 848 (Colo.Ct.App.1981) (contract formed upon acceptance of a proposal); see also Cardon v. Hampton, 21 Ala.App. 438, 109 So. 176, 177 (1926) (recognizing the rule that a contract made over the telephone is regarded as having been made at the place where the a......
-
Western Newspaper Union v. Woodward
...242 S.W.2d 285. 5 Restatement of Conflict of Laws, Section 326, Comment "C"; Corbin on Contracts, Section 79, p. 252; Cardon v. Hampton, 21 Ala.App. 438, 109 So. 176; Dallas Waste Mills v. Early-Foster Co., Tex.Civ.App., 218 S.W. 515; Bank of Yolo v. Sperry Flour Co., 141 Cal. 314, 74 P. 85......
-
EUFAULA HOSP. CORP. v. Lawrence
...implied that a hospital will render services and in return receive a reasonable fee for these services."), and Cardon v. Hampton, 21 Ala.App. 438, 439, 109 So. 176, 177 (1926) ("In the absence of an express agreement as to the details of the time and place of payment, and in the absence of ......