Huckaba v. Abbott

• Decision Date: 29 April 1889
• Citation: 6 So. 48,87 Ala. 409
• Parties: HUCKABA v ABBOTT.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

6 So. 48

87 Ala. 409

HUCKABA v ABBOTT.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 29, 1889

Appeal from circuit court, Randolph county; JAMES W. LAPSLEY, Judge.

This suit was brought by the appellant, H. H. Huckaba, against the appellee, Mrs. Elizabeth Abbott, and sought the recovery of a tract of land specifically described in the complaint. Issue was joined on the plea of the general issue, and payment of the mortgage, which was the foundation of the title upon which the suit was brought. This mortgage was introduced in evidence by the plaintiff. It was signed by James W. Abbott deceased, who was the husband of the defendant, and by the defendant herself. It was shown that under the power of sale as contained in the said mortgage, the land in controversy was sold by an auctioneer, and was purchased at the auction sale by the plaintiff. Upon the examination of one W. T Huckaba, the son of the plaintiff, he testified that the mortgage was given in consideration of a pre-existing debt and to secure the payment of such advances as the plaintiff might make to the said James W. Abbott, deceased; it having been understood between the said James W. Abbott and the plaintiff that the plaintiff would advance to him in order to enable him to make a crop. The defendant, on proving that the business of the plaintiff was conducted under the firm name of H. H. Huckaba & Son or H. H. Huckaba & Co.,-the witness W. T. Huckaba being alleged to be the Son or Co.,-objected to the introduction of the above evidence, on the ground that it was testimony concerning a transaction with a person, since deceased, whose estate was interested in the result of the suit; that the witness W. T. Huckaba was incompetent to testify to the transaction; and "on the further ground that oral evidence is admissible to show that said mortgage was given to secure further advances." It was shown that the witness W. T. Huckaba was not interested in the business of the plaintiff; was only employed in the store as a clerk; was not interested in any way in the result of the suit; and there was no one interested with plaintiff in his business. The court sustained the objection to the evidence, as interposed by the defendant, and the plaintiff duly excepted. There was verdict and judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff now prosecutes this appeal, and assigns the ruling of the court upon the evidence, and the rendering of judgment for the defendant, as error.

...