Crescent Motor Co. v. Stone, 6 Div. 938.

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtBOULDIN, J.
Citation211 Ala. 516,101 So. 49
PartiesCRESCENT MOTOR CO. ET AL. v. STONE.
Decision Date26 June 1924
Docket Number6 Div. 938.

101 So. 49

211 Ala. 516

CRESCENT MOTOR CO. ET AL.
v.
STONE.

6 Div. 938.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 26, 1924


Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Roger Snyder, Judge.

Action by Marion O. Stone against the Crescent Motor Company, S. B. Williamson, and G. A. Daniel. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed. [101 So. 50]

Burgin & Jenkins, of Birmingham, for appellants.

Harsh, Harsh & Harsh, for Birmingham, for appellee.

BOULDIN, J.

The suit is by the father to recover damages for the wrongful act of defendants causing the death of plaintiff's minor son. Code 1907, § 2485.

This is the second appeal. The decision on former appeal is reported in 208 Ala. 137, 94 So. 78. We there held that counts 2 and 3 of the complaint were not subject to the demurrer interposed. We adhere to that ruling.

It was also held that the evidence, and reasonable inferences therefrom, tended to show a joint liability on the part of defendants Williamson and Daniel, justifying a refusal of the affirmative charge on behalf of defendant Daniel. This holding was rested, as shown in the opinion, on certain testimony of Daniel, as a witness, tending to show a joint control of the automobile at the time of the collision, resulting in the death of plaintiff's minor son.

The record now before us shows, by bill of exceptions, the testimony of the witness Daniel on the latter trial, and also affirmatively shows that the stenographic report of his entire testimony on the former trial was offered in evidence and read to the jury, and, further, that only a small part of it is set out in the present bill of exceptions. It thus affirmatively appears that not all the testimony before the jury is before us, notwithstanding the recital to that effect at the end of the bill of exceptions. It follows that the general affirmative instructions refused to defendants, and each of them, are not subject to review.

The court, at the request of plaintiff, gave the following charge in writing:

"When two or more people are engaged in a joint adventure, each is responsible for the torts committed by the other while acting directly in the business of the joint enterprise. If the jury are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that defendant Daniel and defendant Williamson were taking the Cole Eight car to Tuscaloosa together for the Crescent Motor Company, and that part of the time one was driving and part of the time the other was driving
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 practice notes
  • Key v. Carolina & N. W. Ry. Co, No. 13112.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 9, 1931
    ...if the two are engaged in a joint enterprise and each has an equal right to direct the movement of the vehicle." In Crescent Co. v. Stone, 211 Ala. 516, 101 So. 49, 51, the court said: "Charge E above is misleading in putting the emphasis on 'actual' control instead of the right and duty of......
  • Morgan Hill Paving Co. v. Fonville, 6 Div. 17
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • December 6, 1928
    ...of a train at public crossings, when the person riding therein had no control of the driver or the vehicle. Crescent Motor Co. v. Stone, 211 Ala. 516, 101 So. 49; Alabama Power Co. v. Pentecost, 210 Ala. 167, 97 So. 653; Johnson v. L. & N.R. Co., 203 Ala. 86, 82 So. 100; McGeever v. O'Byrne......
  • Connell v. Hayden
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • October 19, 1981
    ...where both had an equal right to control the instrumentality which caused the plaintiff's injury (see Crescent Motor Co. v. Stone, 211 Ala. 516, 101 So. 49; cf. Hobson v. New York Condensed Milk Co., 25 App.Div. 111, 49 N.Y.S. 209), the correct rule was stated by this court in McCormack v. ......
  • Jessup v. Davis, No. 24265.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • November 19, 1926
    ...defendant's negligence in the operation of the machine could not be imputed to the decedent. [3] In Crescent Motor Co. v. Stone, 211 Ala. 516, 101 So. 49, it was held: “Parties are not engaged in a joint enterprise within the law of negligence, unless there is a community of interest in the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
40 cases
  • Key v. Carolina & N. W. Ry. Co, No. 13112.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 9, 1931
    ...if the two are engaged in a joint enterprise and each has an equal right to direct the movement of the vehicle." In Crescent Co. v. Stone, 211 Ala. 516, 101 So. 49, 51, the court said: "Charge E above is misleading in putting the emphasis on 'actual' control instead of the right and duty of......
  • Morgan Hill Paving Co. v. Fonville, 6 Div. 17
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • December 6, 1928
    ...of a train at public crossings, when the person riding therein had no control of the driver or the vehicle. Crescent Motor Co. v. Stone, 211 Ala. 516, 101 So. 49; Alabama Power Co. v. Pentecost, 210 Ala. 167, 97 So. 653; Johnson v. L. & N.R. Co., 203 Ala. 86, 82 So. 100; McGeever v. O'Byrne......
  • Connell v. Hayden
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • October 19, 1981
    ...where both had an equal right to control the instrumentality which caused the plaintiff's injury (see Crescent Motor Co. v. Stone, 211 Ala. 516, 101 So. 49; cf. Hobson v. New York Condensed Milk Co., 25 App.Div. 111, 49 N.Y.S. 209), the correct rule was stated by this court in McCormack v. ......
  • Jessup v. Davis, No. 24265.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • November 19, 1926
    ...defendant's negligence in the operation of the machine could not be imputed to the decedent. [3] In Crescent Motor Co. v. Stone, 211 Ala. 516, 101 So. 49, it was held: “Parties are not engaged in a joint enterprise within the law of negligence, unless there is a community of interest in the......
  • 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