Meyrovitz v. Levy
Decision Date | 13 November 1913 |
Citation | 63 So. 963,184 Ala. 293 |
Parties | MEYROVITZ et al. v. LEVY. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Dec. 18, 1913
Appeal from Circuit Court, Houston County; B.F. Reid, Special Judge.
Action by D. Levy against E. Meyrovitz and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant named appeals. Affirmed.
A.E Pace and Espy & Farmer, all of Dothan, and W.L. Lee, of Columbia, for appellant.
R.P Coleman, of Dothan, for appellee.
Appellee sued E. & J. Meyrovitz on four promissory notes aggregating $1,200. E. Meyrovitz alone defended, on the theory that she executed the notes as surety for her husband, J. Meyrovitz. The trial resulted in verdict and judgment for the plaintiff and the wife alone appeals.
The only question litigated was whether or not the wife owed the debt for which the notes were given. This question was properly raised, was fairly tried and submitted to the jury, and was decided against appellant.
There is no doubt that the notes were given for borrowed money; they so recite, and all the evidence so shows. Was the loan to the wife or to the husband? This is really the only disputed issue.
The loan was obtained for the purpose of purchasing a stock of goods at a bankrupt sale. The money was paid by check to one Chas. I. Levy, who, according to his and the plaintiff's version, received and receipted for it as the agent of the appellant, Mrs. E. Meyrovitz, who is a sister-in-law of the plaintiff. Plaintiff offered in evidence a check and receipt as evidencing the transaction, which were as follows:
Mrs. E. Meyrovitz denied authorizing Chas. I. Levy to obtain the loan or to receipt for the same.
Chas. I. Levy's version of the transaction is as follows: Exhibit A to this witness' deposition is as follows:
Continuing his version of the transaction in question, said witness Chas. I. Levy deposes as follows:
J. Meyrovitz, the husband, testified that the loan was made to him, and not to his wife, and that his wife never authorized him to obtain it for her, nor to buy the stock of goods for her; and his wife testified to the same, or substantially the same, facts.
It is undisputed, however, that the goods purchased were put into the business which was being conducted in the name of the wife, and were accepted by her and sold by her; and that after all of this she and her husband executed the notes sued on, and that the proceeds of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lester v. Jacobs
...189 Ala. 301, 66 So. 493; Bley v. Lewis, 188 Ala. 535, 66 So. 454; Marbury Lbr. Co. v. Woolfolk, 186 Ala. 254, 65 So. 43; Meyrovitz v. Levy, 184 Ala. 293, 63 So. 963; Corinth Bank & Trust Co. v. King, 182 Ala. 403, 62 So. 704; Elkins v. Bank of Henry, 180 Ala. 18, 60 So. 96; Interstate Bank......
-
Hammons v. Chesebrough-Pond's, Inc.
..."satisfied" is normally used in a civil charge, there is no error in using the word "convinced" in lieu of "satisfied." Meyrovitz v. Levy, 184 Ala. 293, 63 So. 963 (1913). We hold in accord with those precedents that, when the trial court used the word "convinced" in its judgment, it only p......