Handley v. Lawley
Decision Date | 19 June 1890 |
Citation | 8 So. 101,90 Ala. 527 |
Parties | HANDLEY ET AL. v. LAWLEY ET AL. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, St. Clair county; LEROY F. BOX, Judge.
Bishop & Witson and J. W. Inzer, for appellants.
This suit was against Lawley and Abercrombie, suing them as individuals and as partners, and seeks to recover on a promissory note signed "W. W. LAWLEY & CO." Abercrombie pleaded non est factum, while Lawley relied on other defenses. The verdict of the jury was: "We, the jury, find the issue for the plaintiff as against W. W. Lawley, and assess the amount at one hundred and seventy-six 42-100 dollars." The court thereupon gave judgment that Abercrombie go hence and recover of plaintiffs half the costs of the suit, and that plaintiff recover of Lawley the amount found by the jury and the other half of the costs. The plaintiffs, Handley, Reeves & Co., bring the case to this court by appeal, and contend that the verdict failed to respond to the whole issue, and did not authorize the judgment which the court rendered. The opinions of the majority of this court in Wittick v. Traun, 27 Ala. 562, and in Traun v. Wittick, Id. 570, are relied on in support of the contention that the verdict in this case did not authorize the judgment rendered. In our opinion the views of the dissenting justice in those cases are supported by the stronger reasoning, and we concur with him. The issues in this case authorized a separate finding, and we hold that, when the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs against one defendant, and said nothing as to the other, this was equivalent to a finding in favor of that other. Expressum facit cessare tacitum. Our ruling is supported by the following authorities: May v. State, 55 Ala. 164; Walker v. State, 61 Ala. 30; Nutt v. State, 63 Ala. 180; Bedsole v. Peters, 79 Ala. 133. See, also, Moody v. Keener, 7 Port. (Ala.) 218; Alexander v. Wheeler, 69 Ala. 332; St. Clair v. Caldwell, 72 Ala. 527. The circuit court did not err in adjudging to Abercrombie his aliquot proportion of the costs. Code 1886, §§ 2609, 2852. There was no error in the charges given. Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Walker v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
... ... Bradford, 200 Ala. 308, 76 So ... 74. And the judgment for costs as to the defendant Houppert ... was duly rendered against plaintiff. Handley v ... Lawley, 90 Ala. 527, 8 So. 101 ... On ... motion of the defendant railway company, the judgment against ... it was set aside, ... ...
-
Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Booth
...61 S.W. 263, 22 Ky. Law Rep. 1706; Brannin & Smith v. Foree's Adm'r, 12 B. Mon. 506; Miller v. Shackleford, 4, Dana, 264; Handley v. Lawley, 90 Ala. 527, 8 South, Maynard v. Ponder, 75 Ga. 664. In the case of I. C. R. R. Co. v. Murphy, 123 Ky. 787, 97 S.W. 729, 30 Ky. Law Rep. 93, 11 L. R. ......
-
R.L. Turner Motors v. Hilkey, 6 Div. 487
...244 N.W. 681. See Sibley v. Odum, 257 Ala. 292, 58 So.2d 896; Richardson v. Stinson, 211 Ala. 254, 100 So. 209; Handley, Reeves & Co. V. Lawley & Co., 90 Ala. 527, 8 So. 101. It is a settled principle that where the liability of the master is predicated upon the doctrine of respondeat super......
-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Simmons
...Morgan. Pollard v. Coulter, 238 Ala. 421, 191 So. 231; Walker v. St. Louis-San F. R. Co., 214 Ala. 492, 108 So. 388; Handley v. Lawley, 90 Ala. 527, 8 So. 101. testimony shows (and this is without dispute) when he stepped over the south rail of the track and attempted to take another step h......