E. Goddard & Sons v. Garner

• Decision Date: 07 February 1896
• Citation: 19 So. 513,109 Ala. 98
• Parties: E. GODDARD & SONS v. GARNER ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

19 So. 513

109 Ala. 98

E. GODDARD & SONS v. GARNER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 7, 1896

Appeal from circuit court, Dale county; J. M. Carmichael, Judge.

Action by E. Goddard & Sons against Barton Garner and others to recover the amount alleged to be due to plaintiff for a car load of flour which was alleged to have been sold by plaintiff to defendants. There was a judgment for defendants and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

On the trial of the case, Joseph H. Goddard, secretary and treasurer of the plaintiff corporation, testified that on August 29 1891, the plaintiff received a telegram from W. B. Goodbread & Co., brokers and commission merchants of Ozark, Ala., to the effect that they had sold one car load of flour; that the plaintiff telegraphed Goodbread & Co. for the names of the parties to whom the flour was sold, and on September 2, 1891 received a letter from them directing the plaintiff to ship the flour to Garner Bros., Ozark, Ala.; that, in obedience to said direction, the plaintiff shipped the car load of flour consigned to Garner Bros., Ozark, Ala.; that the flour was sold to Garner Bros. upon this order from Goodbread & Co. who, as brokers, acted in the transaction as agents of the defendants. There was further testimony for the plaintiff tending to show that the flour was received at Ozark, Ala., and was turned over to Goodbread & Co. The testimony of the defendants, as witnesses in their own behalf, was that they did not buy or order a car load of flour from the plaintiff, either directly or through Goodbread & Co., as brokers and commission merchants, nor did they authorize Goodbread & Co. to order the car load of flour for them, and that upon the presentation of a draft drawn by the plaintiff on them they declined to pay it, and when the flour arrived they declined to receive it. It was also shown that the draft, which was drawn by the plaintiff on the defendants was not accepted by them, but was accepted by Goodbread & Co. The rulings upon the evidence, to which exceptions were reserved, and which are reviewed on the present appeal, are sufficiently shown in the position. There were verdict and judgment for the defendants. Thereupon the plaintiff made a motion for a new trial, but the motion and the rulings of the court thereon are not shown by the bill of exceptions. The plaintiff appeals, and assigns as error the rulings of the trial court upon the evidence and the overruling of the motion for new trial.

H. L. Martin, for appellant.

H. H. Blackman, for appellees.

McCLELLAN J.

The obvious tendency of the testimony of Joseph H. Goddard, to the effect that, "when a broker makes a sale, the party purchasing receives a memorandum describing the sale, and the party selling receives a...