Jordan v. Austin
Decision Date | 17 June 1909 |
Citation | 161 Ala. 585,50 So. 70 |
Parties | JORDAN v. AUSTIN. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cherokee County; W. W. Haralson, Judge.
Action by S. B. Austin against H. E. Jordan. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
The issues presented by the pleadings were that the note was given for the purchase price of the mare, with the guaranty that she was sound and would work well anywhere, while in fact she was not sound, and would not work to the plow wagon, or buggy, and was unsafe. Rescission was also set up. In testifying, the defendant stated that Faulkenberry and certain other persons were present when he started to work the mare, and that his wife was present and heard the guaranty given by plaintiff. The defendant denied having received any letters from plaintiff in reference to the matter. In rebuttal thereto, plaintiff testified that he had written certain letters to defendant, stamped them, and mailed them, addressed to defendant at his post office address, and with plaintiff's return card on corner of the envelope. He also testified that he had registered one letter to defendant, and had received his returned registered card signed by defendant. The court permitted him to testify as to the contents of this registered letter. In his argument, the solicitor for the plaintiff said Objection was interposed to these statements, and exceptions reserved to the court's declining to rule them out. The following charges were refused to the defendant:
G. L Burnett, for appellant.
R. C. Hunt and L. H. Lee, for appellee.
The defendant did not testify that Faulkenberry and the other man saw him try to work the mare when she refused. He merely stated that they were working with him at the time. The trial court should have sustained the objection to so much of plaintiff's counsel's argument as stated, "Why did not the defendant have Faulkenberry and the other witnesses here who worked for him and saw him try to work the mare?" Morris Hotel Co. v. Henley, 145 Ala. 52, 40 So. 52; Cross v. State, 68 Ala. 476; E. T. V. & G. R. R. v. Bayliss, 75 Ala. 466. While, as a rule, there may be an inference unfavorable to the withholding of evidence, this rule does not obtain where the evidence is equally as accessible to both parties. Ethridge v. State, 124 Ala. 106, 27 So. 320; Mann v. State, 134 Ala. 20, 32 So. 704; Bates v. Morris, 101 Ala. 282, 13...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. v. Williams
... ... Am. St. Rep. 17; Ethridge v. State, 124 Ala. 106, 27 ... So. 320; Manley v. Birmingham R. L. & P. Co., 191 ... Ala. 531, 68 So. 60; Jordan v. Austin, 161 Ala. 585, ... 50 So. 70; Galyeston H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Kutac, 72 ... Tex. 643, 11 S.W. 127 ... The ... quotation ... ...
-
McDaniel v. State
... ... both parties. Coosa Portland Cement Co. v ... Crankfield, 202 Ala. 369, 80 So. 451; Jordan v ... Austin, 161 Ala. 585, 50 So. 70; Hutcherson v ... State, 165 Ala. 16, 50 So. 1027, 138 Am.St.Rep. 17; ... Forman v. State, 190 Ala. 22, 67 ... ...
-
Coosa Portland Cement Co. v. Crankfield
...cumulative. Jones on Ev. § 21(18), p. 132; Bates v. Morris, supra; Mann v. State, supra; Ethridge v. State, supra; Jordan v. Austin, supra, 161 Ala. 589, 50 So. 70. The argument of plaintiff's counsel as to absent Hardin's being at Ragland the day before the trial was unwarranted. No object......
-
Egan v. United States
... ... legal sense a stranger to him and is equally available to the ... other side. Jordan v. Austin, 161 Ala. 585, 50 So ... 70; Cullum v. Colwell, 85 Conn. 459, 83 A. 695; ... State v. Fitzgerald, 68 Vt. 125, 34 A. 429; Wood ... ...
-
Nonproduction of Witnesses as Deliberative Evidence
...895 (1931). 86. E.g., Iowa Cent. R.R. v. Hampton Electric Light and Power Co., 204 F. 961 (8th Cir. 1913); Jordan v. Austin, 161 Ala. 585, 50 So. 70 (1909); Bartlett v. Cain, 366 S.W.2d 491 (Mo. Ct. App. 1963). 87. E.g., Case v. New York Cent. R.R., 329 F.2d 936 (2d Cir. 1964); Peetz v. St.......