Moore v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 15 April 1926 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 634 |
| Parties | MOORE v. ROBINSON. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County; O.A. Steele, Judge.
Action by R.B. Robinson against J.J. Moore, as administrator of the estate of Mary J. Fiquett, deceased. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Code 1923, § 7326. Affirmed.
J.M Miller, of Gadsden, for appellant.
E.O McCord & Son, of Gadsden, for appellee.
Action by appellee against appellant as administrator of Mary J Fiquett, deceased, to recover the value of board and lodging furnished by plaintiff to defendant's intestate during the last year of her life.
Appellant assigns for error several rulings in the trial court admitting the testimony of witnesses as to the value of the board and lodging furnished to defendant's intestate. The specific objection now taken is that the witnesses were not shown to be competent to express an opinion on the subject. In the trial court the objection was merely general. Plaintiff was a householder, a man of family. Intestate was received into the family, well cared for according to the evidence, and the jury on the evidence may well have found that she was treated as a member of the family as nearly as might be. We think it may be assumed that persons by their common experience and observation gain some knowledge of the value here in question; such knowledge does not depend upon professional skill or experience as a boarding house keeper. The testimony was properly submitted to the jury for what it was worth. Jones on Evidence, § 363. Section 7656 of the Code, recently imported into the Code, did not change the law, nor does it impeach the rulings just here under consideration.
Plaintiff's wife testified as a witness. She was asked to "tell what was said by Mrs. Fiquett when she came to live in your home." The answer was of no particular consequence; but the objection to question and answer is that they run counter to section 7721 of the Code touching the competency of parties to testify as affected by interest. The suit in the beginning had been brought in the name of the plaintiff and his wife jointly, but the complaint had been amended by striking the name of the wife, the witness. Drew v Simmons, 58 Ala. 463, is cited. It is true that a party in interest may not make himself a competent witness by assigning his claim against the estate of a decedent; but that rule does not affect this case. The wife was improperly joined to begin with; the husband is still the head of his household (Strouse v. Leipf, 14 So. 667, 101 Ala. 433, 23 L.R.A. 622, 46 Am.St.Rep. 122); the statute (section 8262 of the Code) does not emancipate her from her duties as housewife (Birmingham Southern v. Lintner, 38 So. 363, 141 Ala. 427, 109 Am.St.Rep. 40, 3 Ann.Cas. 461; Southern Railway v. Crowder, 33 So. 335, 135 Ala. 417); and, in the absence of contract fixing a different...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Franks v. City of Jasper
...in such form. 'We are of the opinion the ordinance is valid, and the judgment of conviction should accordingly be here affirmed.' 214 Ala. 411, 108 So. 233. It seems clear that the holding in Walden v. City of Montgomery, supra, answers completely the insistence of appellants that § 2 of th......
-
Opinion of the Justices
...beyond the act itself for motives.' [State ex rel.] Crenshaw v. Joseph, supra [175 Ala. 579, 57 So. 942, Ann.Cas.1914D, 248].' 214 Ala. 411, 108 So. 233. legislature, in fixing the classification for the purposes of this particular act may, among other things, very properly consider the fac......
-
Harrison v. Harrison
...for appellant that we have in our original opinion ignored the cases of Butler v. Kent, 152 Ala. 594, 44 So. 863, and Moore v. Robinson, 214 Ala. 412, 108 So. 233, we here undertake to differentiate the instant case from The case of Butler v. Kent, supra, was reversed on appeal for the refu......
-
Bynum Bros. v. State
...15, 92 So. 111; Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Whitley, 213 Ala. 525, 105 So. 661; Leahy v. State, 214 Ala. 107, 106 So. 599; Moore v. Robinson, 214 Ala. 412, 108 So. 233. charges 2 to 6, inclusive, were fully and fairly covered by the oral charge instructing the jury that the testimony of the wi......