Hatch v. Varner
| Decision Date | 04 April 1907 |
| Citation | 43 So. 481,150 Ala. 440 |
| Parties | HATCH v. VARNER. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Hale County; John Moore, Judge.
Action by J. M. Varner against V. A. Hatch. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
The complaint avers in substance that appellant rented to appellee her plantation in Hale county for a term of years that appellant entered upon and cultivated the said plantation during the term, and each year paid the rent and performed all the obligations of his contract of lease to her; that the appellant unlawfully and wrongfully, during the latter part of the last year of the lease, while the crops were still ungathered, entered upon the premises, and notified various tenants, to whom appellee had rented as subtenants, that the appellee had not complied with his obligations under the contract of lease with appellant; and that they must not deliver any part of their crops to appellee, as rent or otherwise, or they would be liable to appellant for appellee's rent, etc. The evidence shows an entry by the agent of appellant some time in August, in response to a letter from appellee to do so, to see about the terms of the lease and wherein appellee had not complied therewith. That was the only entry shown. It was further shown that subtenants of appellee went to appellant's agent to see about their rents, and had some conversation with him relative to the assignee of appellee trying to get them to pay the rent due appellee. Both parties requested the affirmative charge, and were refused. The jury awarded damages to plaintiff, appellee, in the sum of $300, and from this judgment this appeal is prosecuted.
McDaniel & Powell and Pettus, Jeffries & Partridge, for appellant.
De Graffenreid & Evins and Thos. E. Knight, for appellee.
The appellee instituted this action, for damages, against appellant. The trial was had on count 2 of the amended complaint to which the general issue was pleaded. The original count, and the special pleas filed by defendant, all fell under rulings of the court. Count 2 conjunctively alleges that the entry of defendant or her agents on the premises was intentional and wrongful, and that the subtenants named in the count were notified of defendant's claim of a breach of the contract of rental and were warned not to pay plaintiff their rents or deliver their crops to him. There is an entire absence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crim v. Louisville & N.R. Co.
...Gulf City Const. Co. v. L. & N.R.R. Co., 121 Ala. 621, 25 So. 579; Tobler v. Pioneer, etc., Co., 166 Ala. 482, 52 So. 86; Hatch v. Varner, 150 Ala. 440, 43 So. 481. plaintiff wholly failed to prove material averments of the complaint to which there was a plea of the general issue, defendant......
-
Alabama Power Co. v. Berry
...& Mfg. Co., 166 Ala. 482, 515, 518, 52 So. 86, 97; Alexander v. Woodmen of the World, 161 Ala. 561, 566, 49 So. 883, 885; Hatch v. Varner, 150 Ala. 440, 442, 43 So. 481. But there is another compelling reason which, we think, sustains the right of the defendant to the affirmative charge. In......
-
Alabama Power Co. v. Conine
...did not prove, or tend to prove, all of the material averments of this count; hence that charge should have been given. Hatch v. Varner, 150 Ala. 440, 43 So. 481; Tobler v. Pioneer Min. & Mfg. Co., 166 Ala. 482, So. 86. Count 5 is denominated a wanton count. It is defective in failing to av......
-
Kemp v. Wilson
...court erred in refusing to give the affirmative charge requested in writing by appellants, defendants in the court below. Hatch v. Varner, 150 Ala. 440, 43 So. 481. evidence shows that the shooting was done in making an arrest in a beat other than the beat of which defendant Kemp was consta......