Jones v. LeFlore
| Decision Date | 27 October 1982 |
| Citation | 421 So.2d 1287 |
| Parties | Milton JONES, Jr. v. Dr. Walker B. LeFLORE and Janet LeFlore, jointly and individually. Civ. 3155. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
James E. Atchison and Michael M. Davis of Hess, Atchison & Horne, Mobile, for appellant.
Thomas M. Galloway and William M. Sisson of Collins, Galloway & Smith, Mobile, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a judgment for defendants/appellees in an action for work and labor done instigated by plaintiff/appellant.
In November 1974 plaintiff/appellant, Milton Jones, Jr., entered into an agreement with defendants/appellees, Dr. Walker B. LeFlore and Janet LeFlore wherein Jones was to perform architectural services for the LeFlores. In September 1975 the LeFlores terminated Jones due to a dispute over the value and amount of the services performed.
On August 31, 1977, Jones filed his complaint, and an ore tenus hearing was held by Judge James D. Sullivan on October 28, 1981. At the hearing it was established that there was an agreement between the parties; however, evidence as to what services were actually performed, and the value of those services was heavily disputed. Jones, himself, testified that the value of his services ranged between zero and $12,000.
On October 29, 1981, the court entered judgment in favor of the LeFlores. Jones timely filed a motion for new trial and in the alternative, a motion to alter, amend, or vacate judgment on the basis that it was contrary to the law and evidence. This motion was denied. Plaintiff appeals.
The plaintiff contends there was uncontradicted evidence that he performed valuable services for defendants at their request which they accepted and received benefits from. Defendants contend that there was evidence presented from which the trial court could and did find that any work and labor performed by plaintiff was so insufficient, poorly and improperly performed as to be of no value to defendants.
In an action for work and labor, the measure of recovery is the reasonable value of such work and labor performed. Campbell v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 421 F.2d 293 (5th Cir.1969). If such work and labor has no reasonable value for the purpose for which it was requested, there may be no recovery. Our examination of the testimony discloses a conflict as to quantity, quality and value of such work. It is the duty of the court hearing the testimony ore tenus to resolve the conflict and render a judgment accordingly. Having reached and entered such judgment, it is supported by a presumption of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richerson v. State
...tenus proceeding, it is the duty of the trial court to resolve conflict in testimony and render judgment accordingly. Jones v. LeFlore, 421 So.2d 1287 (Ala.Civ.App.1982). Where the trial court resolves a factual issue on conflicting evidence, the reviewing court may not reverse it if there ......
-
Hildreth v. State
...353, 354 (Ala.1995); Teague Bros. Transfer & Storage Co. v. Kinloch, 441 So.2d 968, 969 (Ala.Civ.App.1983); and Jones v. LeFlore, 421 So.2d 1287, 1288 (Ala.Civ.App.1982). The evidence supports the trial court's determination that Bruce, a known drug dealer, purchased the vehicle. The record......
-
Brasili v. Brasili
...conform to the evidence, see, e.g., International Rehabilitation Associates v. Adams, 613 So.2d 1207 (Ala.1992), and Jones v. LeFlore, 421 So.2d 1287 (Ala.Civ. App.1982), an amendment should not be allowed if the opposing party will be "unduly prejudiced" by the amendment; he cites Thorne v......
-
Superior Wall & Paver, LLC v. Gacek
...Such presumption may be overcome only by a showing of absence of support in the evidence or that it is unjust.”Jones v. LeFlore, 421 So.2d 1287, 1288 (Ala.Civ.App.1982) (citation omitted). The record contains evidence from which the trial court could have found that, because Superior did no......