Chilton Warehouse & Mfg. Co. v. Lewis

Decision Date21 December 1911
Citation3 Ala.App. 464,57 So. 100
PartiesCHILTON WAREHOUSE & MFG. CO. v. LEWIS.
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, Elmore County; W. W. Pearson, Judge.

Action by the Chilton Warehouse & Manufacturing Company against J C. Lewis. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Frank W. Lull, for appellant.

J. M. Holley, for appellee.

DE GRAFFENRIED, J.

This suit was brought by the appellant against the appellee on a certain promissory note made by the appellee to appellant for certain commercial fertilizers sold by appellant to appellee.

When the appellant introduced the defendant's note in evidence, it made out a prima facie right to recover the face of the note, interest, and, upon proof of their value, its attorney's fees, for the payment of which by the appellee the note provided. If there existed any good and sufficient reason why the appellant should not so recover, the law cast the duty upon the defendant to show such reason by legal evidence. The appellee claimed that he should not be required to pay the price he had agreed to pay for the fertilizer, but should be required to pay only one-half of that amount because, according to his contention, the fertilizer sold him was deficient in some of its ingredients, as guaranteed or branded on the sacks, and that, by reason of such deficiency the commercial value of the fertilizer sold him fell more than 5 per cent. below the guaranteed total commercial value of the fertilizer so sold to him. Section 37 of the Code of 1907 provides that when such deficiency occurs and amounts to more than 5 per cent. of the guaranteed commercial value of such fertilizer any note or obligation given in payment therefor shall be collectible by law only for one-half of the amount of such note or obligation.

Section 44 of the Code provides the method whereby any purchaser of fertilizer or fertilizer material may obtain, through the officials of the state, and at the state's expense, a complete analysis of the particular lot of fertilizer obtained by him; and it is provided in this section that "such official analysis shall be admissible as evidence in any of the courts of the state on the trial of any issue involving the merits of the particular lot of fertilizer or fertilizer material so sampled and analyzed."

While the analysis provided for in the above section 44, when introduced in evidence on the trial of a cause involving the merits of the particular lot of fertilizer so analyzed, is not made conclusive evidence of its correctness nevertheless, as the analysis is made by trained and impartial officials of the state, such evidence, when introduced on the trial of a cause, would naturally carry with it much probative force. The appellee did not take advantage of section 44 and have his fertilizer analyzed; and he undertook to show that the fertilizer sold to him by appellant fell more than 5 per cent. below its commercial value, as shown by the brands on the sacks containing it, in the following manner: He introduced the record of the official analysis made of the fertilizer manufactured by appellant, as provided in section 43 of the Code. This record shows that the Agricultural Department caused two lots of the brand of fertilizer bought by appellee from appellant to be analyzed under the requirements of and in accordance...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • SE Prop. Holdings, LLC v. Sandy Creek II, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama
    • January 7, 2014
    ...2d 1249, 1252 (Ala. 1983); Lewis v. Haleyville Mobile Home Supply, Inc., 447 So. 2d 691, 692-93 (Ala. 1984); Chilton Warehouse & Mfg. Co. v. Lewis, 57 So. 100, 101 (Ala. App. 1911). With respect to its entitlement to attorneys' fees and costs from SC II, SEPH cites to ¶ 6 of both the origin......
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Trotman
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • April 15, 2013
    ...note and stating that borrower made no payments on note, and borrower did not offer evidence in defense); Chilton Warehouse & Mfg. Co. v. Lewis, 3 Ala.App. 464, 57 So. 100, 101 (1911) (stating that upon introduction of note into evidence, the burden shifts to defendant to show that the hold......
  • Hancock Whitney Bank v. Mason
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama
    • May 26, 2020
    ...note and stating that borrower made no payments on note, and borrower did not offer evidence in defense) and Chilton Warehouse & Mfg. Co. v. Lewis, 57 So. 100, 101 (Ala.App. 1911) (stating that upon introduction of note into evidence burden shifts to defendant to show that the holder is not......
  • Wells Fargo v. Small
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama
    • July 21, 2011
    ...of the note, interest, and, upon proof of their value [and where thenote so provides], its attorney's fees." Chilton Warehouse & Mfg. Co. v. Lewis, 57 So. 100, 101 (Ala. App. 1911); see also Nobles v. Bank of Eclectic, 115 So. 13, 15 (Ala. 1927) ("[T]he recitals in the face of the note are ......
  • 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