Jones v. Frye & Anders Equipment Co.
Decision Date | 28 May 1963 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 713 |
Citation | 42 Ala.App. 102,154 So.2d 47 |
Parties | W. L. JONES v. FRYE AND ANDERS EQUIPMENT COMPANY. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
J. J. Cockrell, Birmingham, and Huel M. Love, Talladega, for appellant.
Dempsey & Hardegree, Ashland, for appellee.
Jones, having been assessed a total of $797.96 by a jury in a detinue action against him, appeals to us. There is no cross appeal.
The trial judge, in summing up the case in his oral charge, stated:
* * *'
Jones claims he bought two International Harvester trucks, both from Frye and Anders. Frye and Anders contended that Jones bought the first truck from a stranger, a Mr. Lowery, who reputedly went to Texas leaving an unpaid paper on this 'first' truck.
Jones quit paying on the second truck and Frye and Anders brought detinue for it. Jones pleaded their breach of warranty of title to the first truck. Also, he pled the paper he signed to pay for the second truck was infected with usury.
We consider the evidence read as a whole would support either theory in fact. Some consideration of the legal effect of the papers might have altered the jury's view of the facts had appropriate written requests for charging the jury been tendered to the trial judge under Code 1940, T. 7, § 273.
Neither party submitted special requests in writing for further instruction. Both counsel accepted the court's general charge. Thus it became the law of the case.
On appeal in a civil case, the office of an assignment of error is as is a pleading at nisi prius. And the bringing forward of propositions of law and of argument using these propositions upon the pertinent facts correspond to the function of evidence below. Thus assignment serves as allegata and argument as probata.
Taking the argument of Jones's brief, we find these contentions:
1. Mr. Frye, president of the plaintiff corporation, was the superior of Jones in education, business, especially in dealing in motor vehicles and had the confidence of Jones.
2. Mr. Jones's payments on the paper for the first truck, plus interest to trial, plus interim payments, 1 total more than the original amount called for in the paper covering the second truck.
3. Exhibit 'A' which Jones undisputedly signed and delivered to Frye and Anders with respect to the first truck contains the following covenant:
'* * * and I hereby agree that the title thereto and to all repairs, replacements of and accessories to said property shall remain in the payee until this note shall have been fully paid in money; * * *'
This covenant Jones contends charged Frye and Anders with warranting title to the first truck. This first truck was repossessed by American Discount Company.
Thus contentions 2 and 3 are enfolded together as facets of a claim of set-off. This claim in turn rests on the major premise that Jones bought the first truck from Frye and Anders.
For the first of these contentions, appellant cites Verner v. Mosely, 221 Ala. 36, 127 So. 527. That case, however, does not apply to the instant situation, for the reason that Mr. Verner was already in a confidential relationship with his client before he purchased the real estate which was the subject of the bill in equity to set the conveyance aside.
Here, there is no such showing of a confidential relationship such as might arise from agency; rather we find that Jones was, at the most, a rather regular customer though irregular in paying.
The note for the first truck was negotiated by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Powe
...application. See, e.g., Sumlin v. Hagan Storm Fence Co. of Mobile, Inc., 409 So.2d 818 (Ala.1982); W. L. Jones v. Frye and Anders Equipment Co., 42 Ala.App. 102, 154 So.2d 47 (1963). Since the debtor cannot direct the trustee's payments except through the plan, the Court concludes that Chry......
-
Felton v. State
...the court's oral charge became the law of the case. Consequently, nothing is presented for review. See Jones v. Frye and Anders Equipment Co., 42 Ala.App. 102, 154 So.2d 47 and City Council of Montgomery v. Gilmer & Taylor, 33 Ala. Was juror, Harry Meadows, subject to challenge? Justice Fos......
-
Trailmobile, Inc. v. Cook
...sufficient to earmark the $4,595.21 payment so that it should have been applied first to Cook's account. Jones v. Frye and Anders Equipment Co., 42 Ala.App. 102, 154 So.2d 47 (1963). Such an earmarking would have meant that Trailmobile had an affirmative duty to apply the Cook Transports pa......
-
West Point Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Bulls
...the account which is most favorable to the creditor. Brown v. Scheuer, Wise & Co., 210 Ala. 47, 97 So. 50.'--Jones v. Frye and Anders Equipment Co., 42 Ala.App. 102, 154 So.2d 47. The check was not a mere warrant or non-negotiable order telling the bank to pay only ABC Supermarket at the ba......