Jordan v. Austin

Decision Date17 June 1909
Citation161 Ala. 585,50 So. 70
PartiesJORDAN v. AUSTIN.
CourtAlabama 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 "Gentlemen of the jury, why did not the defendant have Faulkenberry and the other witnesses here who worked for him and saw him try to work the mare? Gentlemen of the jury, why did the defendant not have his wife here as witness, who he said was present at the time of the contract? Not one word do we hear from Hiram Jordan's wife." 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: "(1) The court charges the jury if Austin guaranteed the mare to Jordan to be sound, and she was not sound, this was a fraud on the part of Austin. (2) The court charges the jury, if the jury believe from the evidence to a reasonable certainty that Austin is indebted to Jordan for board and feed of his horses, the jury should find a verdict in favor of Jordan for the sum due, even if they believe that plaintiff is not entitled to recover anything. (3) The court charges the jury plaintiff had the same right to procure the testimony of Hiram Jordan's wife that defendant had, and the statement of plaintiff's attorney that 'not one word do we hear from Hiram Jordan's wife' was improper, and we should not consider it for any purpose. (4) The court charges the jury, the fact, if it be a fact, that any witnesses do not agree in their testimony as to immaterial facts, will not authorize the jury to disregard their testimony on that account. (5) The court charges the jury that if plaintiff lived at Clinton, Ga., and it was nearly 50 miles from where defendant lived, and it was impracticable for defendant to carry the horse to Austin, the law did not require him to carry it to Austin to rescind."

G. L Burnett, for appellant.

R. C. Hunt and L. H. Lee, for appellee.

ANDERSON J.

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
11 cases
  • Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. v. Williams
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 12 Mayo 1921
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • 19 Agosto 1924
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 28 Noviembre 1918
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 5 Marzo 1923
    ... ... 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 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Nonproduction of Witnesses as Deliberative Evidence
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 1-03, March 1978
    • Invalid date
    ...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.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT