Haas Bros. v. Craft
| Decision Date | 16 December 1913 |
| Citation | 9 Ala.App. 404,64 So. 163 |
| Parties | HAAS BROS. v. CRAFT. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Samuel B. Browne, Judge.
Action by John Craft against Haas Bros., and the members of the firm. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The complaint is based on the common counts on a count for use and occupation, and for rent. The agreement mentioned is as follows: Lease also contained an acceptance by Sage Burgett and Yuille, as agents.
Rickarby & Austill, of Mobile, for appellant.
George E. Crawford, of Mobile, for appellee.
Though the written contract which one Page and the appellants (defendants below) signed was not a lease from the appellee but an executory agreement for a lease (Harrison v Parmer, 76 Ala. 157), and, whether or not by that contract the appellants became bound as principals or as sureties, yet if the execution of it was followed by the appellants entering upon or assuming dominion of the premises mentioned, a recovery of the rent for the entire term may be had under the count for use and occupation, without any other proof of use and occupation than such entry by them, though they quitted the premises before the term expired; and the contract may be looked to to ascertain the amount of the rent and the length of the term agreed upon. Crommelin v Thiess & Co., 31 Ala. 412, 70 Am.Dec. 499; Howard v Jones, 123 Ala. 488, 26 So. 129; A.G. Rhodes Furniture Co. v. Weeden & Dent, 108 Ala. 252, 19 So. 318; Smith v. Pritchett, 98 Ala. 649, 13 So. 569.
There was evidence tending to prove that successive actual occupants of the premises during the period mentioned in the contract held under the appellants; that when the latter were called on by the appellee's agent for the rent, they did not question their liability, but requested that it be collected from the then occupant of the premises if possible. The appellants undertook to show that their dealings with the property were not for themselves, but were in behalf of the Haas Bros. Packing Company, a corporation of which they were the managing officers. It was a question for the jury whether the testimony to this effect rebutted or overcame the evidence tending to prove that the appellants, Haas Bros., who signed the contract, exercised dominion over the property. We cannot assent to the claim that there was an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carroll v. State
...for unauthorized conclusions, this testimony was supported by stated facts upon which the conclusions were hypothesized. Haas Bros. v. Craft, 9 Ala.App. 404, 64 So. 163; McQueen v. Jones, 226 Ala. 4, 145 So. Over general grounds of objections the court allowed in evidence some pictures take......
-
American Sur. Co. of N. Y. v. Hooker
...noted also that the appellee gave evidence relating to the requirement of the bank in the matter of credit arrangements. Haas Bros. v. Craft, 9 Ala.App. 404, 64 So. 163; Tenn. Valley Sand & Gravel Co. v. Pilling, Ala.App., 47 So.2d Assignment 16 Over appellant's objections the appellee was ......
-
Tennessee Valley Sand & Gravel Co. v. Pilling
...a witness to state his conclusion when the witness has previously stated the facts upon which the conclusion is based. Haas Bros. v. Craft, 9 Ala.App. 404, 64 So. 163. We hold that Supreme Court Rule 45, Code 1940, Tit. 7 Appendix, has a purposeful application to the matter of instant Assig......
-
Arrick v. Fanning
...conclusion of the witness. This aside, the appellee had previously stated facts upon which he based his answer. Haas Bros. v. Craft, 9 Ala.App. 404, 64 So. 163. A witness who had been a mechanic for twenty years was permitted, over appellants' objections, to answer this question: 'In your b......