Heard v. Burton-Boyd Mercantile Co.
| Citation | 80 So. 40,202 Ala. 218 |
| Decision Date | 21 November 1918 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 688 |
| Parties | HEARD v. BURTON-BOYD MERCANTILE CO. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Chambers County; S.L. Brewer, Judge.
Action by Will Heard against the Burton-Boyd Mercantile Company in assumpsit on the common count, and on special contract. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
The evidence for plaintiff tended to show that in the fall of 1914 he loaned defendant 29 bales of cotton, and that defendant sold the cotton, and had never settled with him for it. Defendants set up a waive note and mortgage executed by plaintiff to them, and on which was due the sum of $2,900 while the cotton was valued at about $2,700.
R.J Hooten, of Roanoke, for appellant.
Strother & Hines, of Lafayette, for appellee.
Action by appellant for the value of 27 bales of cotton turned over by appellant to appellee to be sold, as appellant contended for account of appellant when he should so direct. Appellee contended that the cotton had been delivered for credit on appellant's account and that it had forthwith sold the cotton as it had a right to do. Judgment over went for appellee on its plea of set-off.
Appellant testified in support of his contention as stated above, and, of course, he should have been allowed to testify as to the value of the cotton at the time when, according to his contention, he directed a sale. The court erred at first in excluding plaintiff's testimony on this point, but the error of that ruling was rendered harmless when afterwards appellant very explicitly and without objection from the other side testified to the fact desired.
Under the provisions of the mortgage which was put in evidence, but which does not appear in the transcript or the bill of exceptions, it may have been relevant and material to know what became of the cotton seed inquired about. We must presume that it was. Moreover, appellant introduced the subject of cotton seed, and the court committed no error in allowing appellee to make it clear that the former was not entitled to a credit on that account.
There was no error in any of the rulings on the testimony offered by the witness R.P. Burton. The witness was properly allowed to state the amount of appellant's indebtedness to appellee, notwithstanding he had before said that he did not know of his own knowledge what goods had been furnished to him, for the witness' further testimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...is not reversible error to permit immaterial evidence to be rebutted by immaterial evidence'). See also Heard v. Burton-Boyd Mercantile Co., 202 Ala. 218, 219, 80 So. 40, 41 (1918). A party has `the right to rebut evidence offered against him, be it relevant or irrelevant.' Smothers v. Stat......
-
McCormick v. Badham
...of these methods, it would by very difficult for the jury to reach anything approximating correct conclusions." So in Heard v. Burton-Boyd Merc. Co., 80 So. 40, 41, Justice Sayre said: "Appellee's itemized statement of its accounts against appellant's tenants, for which appellant was respon......
-
Childers v. State
...is not reversible error to permit immaterial evidence to be rebutted by immaterial evidence"). See also Heard v. Burton-Boyd Mercantile Co., 202 Ala. 218, 219, 80 So. 40, 41 (1918). A party has "the right to rebut evidence offered against him, be it relevant or irrelevant." Smothers v. Stat......