Hampton v. Tant
| Decision Date | 09 January 1917 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 380 |
| Citation | 73 So. 825,15 Ala.App. 463 |
| Parties | HAMPTON v. TANT. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, De Kalb County; W.W. Haralson, Judge.
Detinue by A.P. Hampton against W.H. Tant. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Davis & Baker, of Ft. Payne, for appellant.
Isbell & Scott, of Ft. Payne, for appellee.
The plaintiff, appellant here, claimed title to the property sued for through a mortgage, and the defense was that the mortgage debt had been paid. There was also a suggestion under the provisions of section 3789, Code 1907, that the jury be required to ascertain the amount of the mortgage debt.
The plaintiff's contention was that the note for $280 secured by the mortgage covered the balance due on the mill and an account made in 1911; that when the mill was moved to Carroll's, the defendant owed him $200 on an unsecured account, and for this the defendant, Pope, and Smalley gave their note; that defendant owed $290 on a note for mules and wagon, and also owed an account, making the aggregate indebtedness $1,100; and plaintiff admitted that the defendant had paid something over $900 on the indebtedness after the note for $200 was given. The plaintiff also testified that at the term of the court next before the trial of this case he had recovered against the defendant on the note for $200, and the evidence shows that this judgment was subsequently paid by the defendant.
The defendant's contention was that all of his indebtedness to plaintiff was represented in the $200 note secured by Smalley and Pope and the indebtedness of $280 secured by the mortgage, and that all this had been paid. Whether the receipts represented payment on the mortgage debt was a question for the jury, and the receipts were properly admitted; and the court at the time properly instructed the jury that, if they found that the receipts did not represent payments on the mortgage debt, they were not to be considered. Furthermore, the plaintiff's own testimony shows that he recovered against the defendant in the action on the $200 note, and this at least tends to show that the receipts did not represent payments on that note and therefore, if the defendant's contention that his entire indebtedness was covered by the note for $200 and the mortgage for $280 was true, the jury was authorized to find that the receipts represented payments on the mortgage.
The plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Kelsoe v. State
-
Employers Ins. Co. of Ala. v. Cross
...new trial overruled. Judgment ordered for $464.40 instead of $500.00. Defendant excepts. 's/ Newton B. Powell, Judge' In Hampton v. Tant, 15 Ala.App. 463, 73 So. 825, this court 'Neither the record proper nor the bill of exception shows any order of the court on the motion for new trial. Th......