Minchener v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 17 November 1910
• Citation: 169 Ala. 472,53 So. 749
• Parties: MINCHENER ET AL. v. ROBINSON.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

53 So. 749

169 Ala. 472

MINCHENER ET AL. v. ROBINSON.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 17, 1910

Rehearing Denied Dec. 22, 1910.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; W. W. Pearson, Judge.

Action by J. T. Robinson against J. R. Minchener and others. From the judgment, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Ball &amp Samford, for appellants.

Hill Hill & Whiting, for appellee.

SAYRE J.

This was an action of detinue for the recovery of an electric motor; the case having originated before a justice of the peace. On appeal to the circuit court, the trial was had without a jury. Appellee was plaintiff in the trial court. Plaintiff and defendants had in some vaguely defined way been associated together in operating a small hardwood factory. The business was known as the "Minchener Hardwood Factory," belonged to Mrs. Minchener, and was managed by Minchener. The motor in controversy was purchased from one Browder. There is hardly anything in the case, except an issue of fact as to whether the purchase was made by Robinson on his individual account, or by Robinson and the Mincheners on their joint account. As the evidence is stated in the bill of exceptions, there seems to be a slight preponderance in favor of appellee's individual ownership. The trial court had advantages in the consideration of the testimony of the witnesses which we cannot have, and in this state of the case we cannot disturb the finding.

Outside of the argument upon the general conclusion already stated we find in the brief for appellants only two suggestions of error. These will be considered.

1. When plaintiff bought the motor, he agreed to pay $150 for it as soon as it was tested and found capable of developing 20 horse power. About a month later, a payment of $75 was made by plaintiff; the money being gotten from Minchener. Still later Minchener paid the balance of $75. On the trial before the justice of the peace, an itemized statement of the account between the parties had been produced, in which $75 was charged to plaintiff at the date of the first payment. The statement also showed a balance as of its date slightly in excess of $75 in favor of plaintiff. Minchener kept the account, and the statement produced was in his handwriting. Plaintiff accounted for this method of payment by his testimony that the Mincheners were indebted to him, and agreed to furnish the money in payment and discharge of the indebtedness. The statement of account was received in the circuit court, not...