Cravey v. Covington County Bank

• Decision Date: 20 May 1919
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 540
• Citation: 17 Ala.App. 113,82 So. 561
• Parties: CRAVEY et al. v. COVINGTON COUNTY BANK.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

82 So. 561

17 Ala.App. 113

CRAVEY et al. v. COVINGTON COUNTY BANK.

4 Div. 540

Court of Appeals of Alabama

May 20, 1919

Appeal from Circuit Court, Covington County; A.B. Foster, Judge.

Action by the Covington County Bank against N.P. Cravey and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Baldwin & Murphy, of Andalusia, for appellants.

A Whaley, of Andalusia, for appellee.

BRICKEN J.

Appellee brought suit against appellants upon a note under seal. The evidence for the plaintiff in the lower court was to the effect that the defendants owed a debt to the K. & K Fertilizer Company, and upon request of the defendants (appellants) appellee paid to the fertilizer company the balance due for the fertilizers, and the note sued on was executed to appellee for the amount so paid by it. The evidence for appellants tended to show that some cotton was delivered by them to the fertilizer company to be held until directed to be sold, and that the amount of the note sued on was for the balance due for fertilizer after the cotton was turned over. The evidence of the appellee was to the effect that it had nothing to do with any agreement between appellants and the fertilizer company about holding the cotton. The appellants contended that they did not know that the note sued on was executed to appellee, but there was evidence tending to show that payments on the note were made by appellants to appellee after its execution and with notice that it was payable to appellee. There was judgment in favor of appellee, and appellants appeal to this court and assign as error several rulings made by the court upon the admission of testimony and the overruling of a motion for a new trial.

There was no error in overruling the objection of appellants to the question, "On the 1st day of February, 1915, was any amount placed to the credit of the K. & K. Fertilizer Company on account of this note?" propounded to witness E.E Kelly by plaintiff. One of the contentions was that the appellee had paid the fertilizer company the amount of the debt due by appellants, and it was competent to show in what manner it was paid,, to wit, by giving credit to the company. Moreover, the objection was a general objection, and the testimony was clearly legal.

There was no error in sustaining the objection to the question "What was the price of cotton on January 1, 1916," asked the witness Kelly by defendants. The price of cotton at that time was immaterial so far as appel...