Jones v. Pelham
| Decision Date | 22 March 1888 |
| Citation | 84 Ala. 208,4 So. 22 |
| Parties | JONES v. PELHAM ET AL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Talladega county; LEROY F. BOX, Judge.
This was an action brought by Charles S. Jones, as administrator of the estate of Charles H. Jones, deceased, for the recovery of certain lands described in the complaint, against Harry R Boswell and Charles Pelham. Charles Pelham put in his special plea of disclaimer, and the other defendant pleaded the general issue and the statute of limitations, and issue was joined thereon. The evidence on the part of the plaintiff, as shown by the bill of exceptions, showed that in 1869 the plaintiff's intestate bought the land in controversy from J. W. & R. A. McMillan, and introduced in evidence the deed from J. W. & R. A. McMillan and their wives to the said land. There was evidence that the said Charles Pelham became the tenant of the plaintiff's intestate shortly after he purchased the said land, and so continued. During the examination of the said Charles Pelham as a witness for the defendants, he was asked if, during the time he was in possession of the lot in controversy, he ever stated to any one that he claimed the same as his own property. The plaintiff objected to this question, but the courts overruled the objection, and allowed the witness to answer the question, and the plaintiff excepted. In his answer the witness stated that he had said that he claimed the lot in controversy, while standing on the said lot, but that plaintiff's intestate was not present, nor did he ever say so in his presence. The plaintiff objected to this answer, but the court overruled his objection, and allowed the answer to go to the jury; and the plaintiff duly excepted. The defendant offered to introduce the tax deed from the auditor, and tax receipts from the tax collector and the tax assessor's book, to show that the said property was assessed to the defendant Boswell, had been purchased from the state by him, and that he had paid the taxes on it for years. The assessment only showed that "a house and lot, the property of Charles Pelham, on Battle street," had been assessed, and the taxes paid by the said defendant Boswell. It was shown that the said Pelham had two lots on the said Battle street, whereupon the plaintiff objected to the introduction of the deed, receipts and assessment book. The court overruled the objection, and the plaintiff thereupon duly excepted. One Hayden, a lawyer was introduced as a witness, and was asked concerning a conversation he had said that he had had with the plaintiff's intestate, and had repeated the said conversation to one of the defendant's lawyers. This was done for the purpose of impeaching witness. The plaintiff objected to the question on the ground that as the alleged conversation was to the effect that the plaintiff's intestate had said that he had thrown the deed to the property away as worthless, it had a tendency to disparage the plaintiff's titles, and could not, therefore, be brought before the jury, it being at most but hearsay evidence. The court overruled the objection, allowed the witness to testify, and the plaintiff excepted. The defendants introduced evidence tending to show that the said Pelham had been in possession of the adjoining lot since 1869, although he first went into possession of it as tenant of the plaintiff's intestate, and that the said Boswell had been in uninterrupted possession since 1878, and the present suit was commenced in October, 1881. The several rulings of the court are here assigned as error.
Knox & Bowie, for appellant.
As a general rule, a party's own declarations, made in the absence of his adversary, cannot be admitted as evidence for him. An exception to the general rule is that the declarations of one in possession of property, explanatory of the possession, may be received in evidence as constituting a part of the res gestæ. His declarations, however respecting the source of his title, and not explanatory of the possession, are inadmissible. The defense...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Manning v. State
...evidence of the facts of the case, nor be received for any other purpose than that of contradicting or impeaching the witness. Jones v. Pelham, 84 Ala. 208 . The was entire and not severable, and it was impracticable to admit a part of it to go to the jury. The practice in such cases is to ......
-
Isbell v. State
...of the facts of the case, nor be received for any other purpose than that of contradicting of impeaching the witness--Jones v. Pelham, 84 Ala. 208, 4 So. 22. . . .' Kennedy v. State, 85 Ala. 326, 5 So. 300. The Courts of this state have consistently held that the use of prior inconsistent s......
-
Patterson v. State
...of the facts of the case, nor be received for any other purpose than that of contradicting or impeaching the witness--Jones v. Pelham, 84 Ala. 208, 4 So. 22. ...' Kennedy v. State, 85 Ala. 326, 5 So. 300. The Courts of this state have consistently held that the use of prior inconsistent sta......
-
Thomas Furnace Co. v. Carroll
... ... the court in disregarding testimony of such witness, but that ... its credibility was made a question for the jury. Jones ... v. Bell, 201 Ala. 336, 77 So. 998; Powell v ... Olds, 9 Ala. 861, 865, 866. Jury questions were ... presented as to who gave the signal to ... limit its evidential effect. Kennedy v. State, 85 ... Ala. 326, 331, 5 So. 300; Jones, Adm'r, v ... Pelham, 84 Ala. 208 (5), 4 So. 22; Mascott Coal Co ... v. Garrett, 156 Ala. 290, 297, 298, 47 So. 149; Sou ... Ry. Co. v. Reeder, 152 Ala. 227, 229, ... ...