Hyatt's Supply Co. v. Lyle

• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BROWN, J.
• Citation: Hyatt's Supply Co. v. Lyle, 222 Ala. 460, 133 So. 3 (Ala. 1931)
• Decision Date: 12 March 1931
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 283.
• Parties: HYATT'S SUPPLY CO. v. LYLE.

133 So. 3

222 Ala. 460

HYATT'S SUPPLY CO. v. LYLE.

8 Div. 283.

Supreme Court of Alabama

March 12, 1931

Appeal from Circuit Court, Limestone County; W. W. Callahan, Judge.

Action on account by Hyatt's Supply Company against W. B. Lyle. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Sanders & Woodroof, of Athens, for appellant.

Fred Wall and R. B. Patton, both of Athens, for appellee.

BROWN J.

This is an action of assumpsit; the complaint consisting of two of the common counts, on open account, and on stated account. The plea was the general issue.

The plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that the defendant admitted that he was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $183.53, and, in connection with the testimony of the witness, offered in evidence a statement of account in favor of the plaintiff and against "M. W. B. Lyle Studio," containing items of account and credits thereon, running from January 1, 1928, to March 28, 1929 showing a balance of $183.53; it being shown that this statement of account was presented to the defendant, and he admitted its correctness and agreed to pay it.

At the conclusion of the evidence, the court, at the request of the defendant in writing, gave the affirmative charge for the defendant.

The proposition asserted to sustain this ruling is: "The mere promise of a defendant to pay the debt of another on no other consideration than the debt itself is nudum pactum"-citing Richardson v. Fields, 124 Ala 535, 26 So. 981.

The proposition stated is good, but it is not applicable here for at least two reasons:

First want of consideration is a special defense and cannot be availed of under the...