Frick Co. v. Monroe
| Decision Date | 05 February 1929 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 690. |
| Citation | 23 Ala.App. 244,123 So. 260 |
| Parties | FRICK CO. v. MONROE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Feb. 26, 1929.
Reversed on Mandate June 29, 1929.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; Paul Speake, Judge.
Action by the Frick Company against W. P. Monroe. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Watts & White, of Huntsville, for appellant.
R. E Smith, of Huntsville, for appellee.
The record in this case discloses that on May 24, 1927, appellee wrote the following letter to the appellant:
On May 28, 1927, appellant wrote the following letter to Farmers' Cotton Oil & Fertilizer Company at Huntsville, Ala.:
"May 28, 1927.
' 10 gauge saw with 34 #3 teeth. You do not specify in your letter the number of teeth. Mr. Ballard says this is to be a tractor saw, and the price would indicate this. Even if we figure on a tractor saw, he is $2.58 too low. That, however, is being passed up.
On June 3, 1927, the appellee wrote the appellant the following letter from Huntsville, Ala.:
On July 1, 1927, the appellant shipped all the machinery called for in the letter of May 24th, from Atlanta, Ga., except the saw. This saw the appellant ordered from R. Hoe & Co., Inc., Birmingham, Ala., and same was shipped by that concern on July 7, 1927, consigned to the order of Frick Company, at Huntsville, Ala., with instructions to notify Farmers' Cotton Oil & Fertilizer Company. The saw shipped by the Birmingham concern was a 48" Cotton Oil & Fertilizer Company, W. P. Monroe, manager; that Mr. Monroe wrote out the order above referred to, himself, and the witness forwarded the order to the home office,
Witness further testified that he was in Huntsville again about the 10th or 12th or maybe the 15th of July; that he went to the Southern Railway Company's depot and found the machinery there, and went up to the First National Bank and saw the bill of lading and draft, and that he saw Mr. Monroe, the appellee, on that occasion, and asked him what was the trouble about him not taking the machinery, leaving the draft and machinery and not taking it out, and Mr. Monroe told him that he had gotten a letter from the branch manager at Atlanta, and showed the witness the letter, referring to the letter of May 28th; that Mr. Monroe stated that he refused the machinery because he did not like this letter; that he did not like the tone of the letter; that the witness asked him if the machinery was all right, and if he had any objection to the machinery, and he said none that he knew of to be accurate; that Mr. Monroe had not paid for the machinery.
The evidence further showed that Mr. Monroe had not paid for the machinery ordered and shipped.
This was substantially all of the evidence, and at the request of the defendant in the court below, appellee here, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Clayton v. State
-
Creel v. State
... ... of the case against his client ... One of ... defendant's material witnesses was Monroe Williams. Much ... testimony was offered by the state tending to impeach the ... general character and reputation of this [23 Ala.App. 244] ... ...
-
Frick Co. v. Monroe
...to Court of Appeals. Action by Frick Company against W. P. Monroe. Judgment for defendant was reversed and remanded in Court of Appeals (123 So. 260), and defendant petitions for certiorari. Opinion corrected writ denied. R. E. Smith, of Huntsville, and Thos. B. Hill, Jr., of Montgomery, fo......