Metcalf v. Payne
Decision Date | 10 December 1925 |
Docket Number | 4 Div. 226 |
Citation | 214 Ala. 81,106 So. 496 |
Parties | METCALF et al. v. PAYNE, Director General of Railroads. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Geneva County; H.A. Pearce, Judge.
Action by John Barton Payne, Director General of Railroads operating the Central of Georgia Railroad, against W.L Metcalf, executor, and Sallie Metcalf, executrix, of the will of P.M. Metcalf, deceased. From a judgment for plaintiff defendants appeal. Transferred from Court of Appeals under section 7326, Code of 1923. Affirmed.
On paying damaged shipper, road became subrogated to his right against shipper benefited by the error.
This cause was tried before the court without a jury, resulting in a judgment for plaintiff, from which defendants have appealed.
The material facts are, in brief, as follows: On January 25 1919, a carload of cattle belonging to P.M. Metcalf (now deceased), and consisting of 44 head, was shipped over the Central of Georgia Railway from Eufaula, consigned to Rice & Son, New Orleans, La. On the same date D.C. Turnipseed shipped over said Central of Georgia Railway a car of 37 head of cattle consigned to a concern at National Stockyards, Illinois. These cars were crossed in some manner at Montgomery, the shipment intended for New Orleans going to National Stockyards, and the shipment intended for the latter place going to New Orleans. The car sent to New Orleans was sold by Rice & Son and netted $2,670.13, and the proceeds remitted to P.M. Metcalf. The car belonging to Metcalf, which went to National Stockyards, contained smaller, inferior cattle, and was of value not more than $1,270.13. P.M. Metcalf therefore actually received $1,400 more than his cattle were worth. The Director General of Railroads made a settlement with Turnipseed, the mistake in shipment being the fault of the railway, and brought this suit against the executors of the estate of P.M. Metcalf to recover the excess sum received by Metcalf as a result of the error. There was no proof of assignment by Turnipseed of any claim he had against Metcalf, but plaintiff relied upon the doctrine of subrogation. There was no proof of any presentation of any claim against P.M. Metcalf during his life or to his executors, but plaintiff rested for proof of presentation upon the claim filed in the probate court where the estate of P.M. Metcalf, deceased, was being administered, which claim is as follows:
"State of Georgia.
County of Chatham.
"Before me personally appeared George S. Gaillard, who being duly sworn, deposes and says: Deponent is freight claim agent of Central of Georgia Railway Company and is the duly authorized agent of the Director General of Railroads for the collection of all outstanding claims due the Director General of Railroads arising out of the operation of Central of Georgia Railroad, and that the facts stated in the foregoing account against the estate of P.M. Metcalf, deceased, are true and correct; and that the amount is justly due after allowing all proper credits.
G.S. Gaillard.
Defendants' objection to the introduction of said claim, upon the ground it showed no liability of defendants to the plaintiff, was overruled and exception duly reserved.
Count 4 of the complaint is as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
First Nat. Bank v. Love
...' " There must be some formality of presentation, that is, something definite upon which the executor is supposed to act. Metcalf v. Payne, 214 Ala. 81, 106 So. 496. think the opinion lays too great a stress upon the knowledge of the executor rather than upon the question as to whether or n......
-
Merchants Nat. Bank of Mobile v. Cotnam
...from all similar claims.' Moebes v. Kay, 241 Ala. 294, 2 So.2d 754, 755, 757; Watson v. Hamilton, 210 Ala. 577, 98 So. 784; Metcalf v. Payne, 214 Ala. 81, 106 So. 496; Foster v. Foster, 219 Ala. 70, 121 So. 80; v. Burns, 228 Ala. 61, 152 So. 48; Floyd v. Clayton, 67 Ala. 265; Smith v. Fello......
-
First Nat. Bank of Birmingham v. Chichester
...of action subsequently used to enforce it does not bar the suit. Watson v. Hamilton, 210 Ala. 577, 98 So. 784 (1923); Metcalf v. Payne, 214 Ala. 81, 106 So. 496 (1925). Defendants submit that testimony was admitted over objection contrary to Tit. 7, § 433, Code of Alabama (1940) (Recomp.195......
-
Foster v. Foster
... ... certainty from all similar claims. Watson v ... Hamilton, 210 Ala. 577, 98 So. 784; Metcalf v ... Payne, 214 Ala. 81, 106 So. 496. This rule would not ... require itemization ... The ... claims here in question meet the ... ...