Hunt v. Murdock, 8 Div. 599.
| Decision Date | 11 October 1934 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 599. |
| Citation | 156 So. 841,229 Ala. 277 |
| Parties | HUNT et al. v. MURDOCK. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; A. E. Hawkins, Judge.
Action in assumpsit by Evie A. Murdock against Josie Hunt and D. K Searcy, as executors of the will of A. J. Hunt, deceased. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Transferred from Court of Appeals.
Affirmed.
J. A Lusk, of Guntersville, for appellants.
McCord & McCord, of Gadsden, for appellee.
The suit is by the plaintiff against the executors of the estate of A. J. Hunt, deceased, seeking a recovery of $1,000 for services rendered to decedent and his wife for the fourteen years next preceding his death. The trial court limited any recovery to services for the last six years, and plaintiff was awarded a judgment on the verdict of the jury in the sum of $82.90.
The complaint contained all substantial requirements , and, if lacking in any technical formality, it is sufficient to say the point was not taken by any assignment of demurrer addressed thereto.
If there was any reason, in qualifying the jury, that they should be asked if indebted in any way to the National Bank of Boaz, it is not made to here appear. No juror, however was so indebted. There is nothing before us to indicate that the question was of any prejudicial character, and we find nothing in this matter which would justify a reversal of the cause. J. B. McCrary v. Phillips, 222 Ala. 117, 130 So. 805.
Plaintiff testified to no transaction with or statement by deceased, but only to the collateral fact that services were rendered. This did not violate any provision of our statute. Section 7721, Code 1923; Warten v. Black, 195 Ala. 93, 70 So. 758.
The agreement on decedent's part to pay for the services was established by testimony of another witness whose competency cannot be seriously questioned.
The claim filed against the estate contained essential requirements of our statute (section 5818, Code 1923), and was sufficient. Metcalf v. Payne, 214 Ala. 81, 106 So. 496. There was proof of services rendered, the reasonable value thereof, and agreement on the part of decedent to pay for the same, as well as due presentation of the claim. Plaintiff therefore made out a case for the jury's consideration, and the affirmative charge was properly refused.
We have discussed those matters of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richards v. Williams
...of assignments of error 2 to 10 inclusive did not offend the statute and were within the rule of Warten et al. v. Black, and Hunt et al. v. Murdock, supra. claim declared upon was duly verified and presented by filing in the office of the judge of probate as provided by the act of 1931 (Gen......
-
Burnett v. Garrison, 6 Div. 547
...deceased, but only to the collateral fact that services were rendered. This did not violate any provision of our statute.' Hunt v. Murdock, 229 Ala. 277, 156 So. 841. 'In an automobile accident case, allowing the plaintiff to testify to conduct of defendant's deceased driver held reversible......
-
Schmale v. Bolte, 6 Div. 62
...and therefore not controlled by Winter v. Pollak, 188 Ala. 153, 66 So. 11, as reported in that and several other appeals. Hunt v. Murdock, 229 Ala. 277, 156 So. 841. The same reasoning applies to the cross assignments of error. Appellee seeks a modification of the decree so as to include co......
-
Brooks v. Brooks, 1 Div. 594
...'independent' facts, under the principles approved in such cases as Richards v. Williams, 231 Ala. 450, 453, 165 So. 820; Hunt v. Murdock, 229 Ala. 277, 156 So. 841; Warten v. Black, 195 Ala. 93, 95, 99, 70 So. 758, and Miller v. Cannon, 84 Ala. 59, 64, 4 So. 204. See, also, Burnett v. Garr......