Miles v. Barrett
| Decision Date | 14 May 1931 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 664. |
| Citation | 223 Ala. 293,134 So. 661 |
| Parties | MILES v. BARRETT. [*] |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; C. B. Smith, Judge.
Action for damages for personal injuries by A. B. Miles against T L. Barrett. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Lange Simpson & Brantley and Reid B. Barnes, all of Birmingham, for appellant.
Stokely Scrivner, Dominick & Smith, of Birmingham, for appellee.
This action was brought by appellant to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been proximately caused by the negligence of defendant while operating an automobile which ran upon or against plaintiff and inflicted upon him said personal injuries.
As to whether or not the defendant was guilty of such negligence the evidence was in sharp conflict, but it appeared without dispute that the plaintiff, in consideration of defendant paying his doctors' and hospital bills, amounting to less than $100, executed a written release " in full and complete settlement of any and all claims of the undersigned (plaintiff) against the said T. L. Barrett (defendant) on account of such injuries." (Italics supplied.)
There was an absence of evidence showing, or tending to show, anything like fraud or deceit practiced on the plaintiff in procuring his signature to the release, and in his testimony he admits that he read it and was fully acquainted with its contents.
Giving to the release what, in his opinion, was its legal effect, the trial court directed a verdict for the defendant by giving the affirmative charge at his request in writing, resulting in verdict and judgment in his favor.
The contention here is that there was evidence before the jury tending to show that the plaintiff in executing the release, and the defendant in accepting it, were laboring under mutual mistake of fact, in that both parties acted on the assumption that plaintiff had only suffered a trivial injury to his face, which would not disfigure him, but as a matter of fact one of his cheek bones was crushed, leaving a deep depression on one side of his face, necessitating further surgical treatment.
There are numerous decisions that sustain appellant's contention that a release given and accepted under mutual mistake of fact in such cases, as to the nature and extent of the injury, may be avoided, although the execution thereof was not superinduced by fraud, and it may be conceded that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Middleton v. Dan River, Inc.
...corners of the instrument itself...." Finley v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 456 So.2d 1065, 1067 (Ala. 1984), quoting Miles v. Barrett, 223 Ala. 293, 134 So. 661 (1931). Here, the release simply referred generally to the petition filed by the parties. Therefore, the surrounding circumstan......
- Jones v. Preuit & Mauldin
-
Johnston v. Bridges
...and duty being to ascertain the lawful intentions of the parties therein expressed, and to give effect to that intention. Miles v. Barrett, 223 Ala. 293, 134 So. 661; Wright v. McCord, 205 Ala. 122, 88 So. 150; Barbour v. Poncelor, 203 Ala. 386, 388, 83 So. 130; Gravlee v. Lamkin, 120 Ala. ......
-
Irvin v. Griffin Corp.
...evidence is not admissible to impeach it or vary its terms." Baker v. Ball, 473 So.2d 1031, 1035 (Ala.1985) (quoting Miles v. Barrett, 233 Ala. 293, 134 So. 661 (1931)). There is no evidence in the record to support a claim that the release was induced by fraud, and it is undisputed that th......