H.B. Claflin Co. v. Rodenberg

• Decision Date: 17 May 1893
• Citation: 13 So. 272,101 Ala. 213
• Parties: H. B. CLAFLIN CO. v. RODENBERG ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

13 So. 272

101 Ala. 213

H. B. CLAFLIN CO. v. RODENBERG ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 17, 1893

Appeal from circuit court, Dallas county; John Moore, Judge.

Action in attachment by the H. B. Claflin Company against F. L. & H Rosenberg, defendants, and Charles L. Rodenberg, claimant. From a judgment for claimant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

The evidence, as shown by the bill of exceptions, tended to show that F. S. & H. Rosenberg, who were doing a mercantile business in Selma, were on January 20, 1891, indebted to the H. B. Claflin Company in the sum of $6,203.61. On the evening of January 20, 1891, they sold a part of their stock of goods to Charles L. Rodenberg in satisfaction of an indebtedness of $1,500. These goods were sold and packed in boxes and a trunk between 7 and 9 o'clock that night, and were left in the store. At half past 10 o'clock the same night, F. S. & H Rosenberg made an assignment for the benefit of their creditors to Rothchild, and at 1 o'clock on the same night plaintiff had levied an attachment on all of the goods in the store of F. S. & H. Rosenberg, including these goods which were packed in boxes and in the trunk, and which had been sold to Rodenberg. On the next morning the claimant demanded of the sheriff the goods which he had bought, and upon his making the necessary affidavit, and giving bond in double the appraised value of the goods, they were delivered to him by the sheriff. The claimant introduced in evidence a bill of the sale from F. S. & H. Rosenberg for the goods purchased, to which bill of sale was attached an itemized statement of the goods, which was marked "Schedule A." This itemized statement amounted to $1,603.45, and at the bottom thereof there was a receipt in full payment of the indebtedness of F. S. & H. Rosenberg to Charles L Rodenberg. There was evidence for the plaintiff which tended to show that there was attached to the same bill of sale another statement, called "Schedule A, Continued," amounting to $605.02, at the bottom of which payment in full was acknowledged. There was also evidence introduced in behalf of the plaintiff that there were articles of embroideries and table napkins, varying in value, according to the testimony, from $200 to $600, which were delivered to the claimant, and which were not included in these itemized statements. The claimant himself testified that in the trunk there were some articles that were not included in the itemized statements, and at the same time there were not some articles that were included therein. The evidence of the claimant was that all of the goods he received from F. S. &amp H. Rosenberg were sold by him to one Jack Holtzman and Oberndorf & Ullman; that Oberndorf & Ullman paid the claimant $1,250 for the goods they bought, which amount was 60 per cent. of the New York cost of the goods at the time of the purchase, on March 1, 1891; that Holtzman paid something over $100 for the goods he purchased. Upon redirect examination of the claimant he was asked what was the amount received by him for all the goods sold to Jack Holtzman, and, "What amount did you receive for all the goods you sold to Oberndorf & Ullman?" The plaintiff objected to each of these questions, and separately excepted to the court's overruling its objection to each of them. On the examination of Robert Kennedy after he testified that he was the deputy sheriff who levied the attachment, at the suit of the H. B Claflin Company against F. S. & H. Rosenberg, and that he delivered the goods claimed by the claimant to him, he was asked, on cross-examination, "What was the amount of the H. B. Claflin Company's debt claimed, when levy was made?" The plaintiff objected to this question, and duly excepted to the court's overruling its objection. Upon the introduction by the plaintiff of J. I. Bizzell, he testified that he was in the employ of the defendants in attachment, and assisted in packing the goods sold to Charles L. Rodenberg, in the boxes and trunk, and that, when he commenced to put up the goods, F. S. Rosenberg told him to value them, but that, after valuing a few, F. S. Rosenberg stopped him, saying he put too high a valuation on them. This witness was asked by the plaintiff if Fred. S. Rosenberg while they were selecting and packing the goods, told him (witness) that claimant had agreed to receive goods for him. The court sustained the claimant's objection to this question, and the defendant duly excepted. The plaintiff then asked the witness if he knew of Fred. S. Rosenberg trying to get the claimant to receive goods for him, the said F. S. Rosenberg. The claimant objected to this question. The court sustained the objection, and plaintiff duly excepted. The plaintiff then offered to prove by said witness "that, after the packing of the boxes, F. S. Rosenberg put in his pockets a number of billheads," but claimant objected to this evidence. The court sustained the objection, and the plaintiff excepted. There were several other exceptions reserved by the plaintiff to the court's sustaining the claimant's objections to the evidence sought to be introduced by this witness, but the assignments of error to these rulings render it unnecessary to notice them in detail. The assignment...