Myers v. Byars
| Decision Date | 06 February 1893 |
| Citation | 12 So. 430,99 Ala. 484 |
| Parties | MYERS v. BYARS. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from city court of Birmingham; W. W. Wilkerson, Judge.
Action by I. E. Byars against D. F. Myers to recover $1,000 under an alleged agreement. The complaint contained only the common counts. There was judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Modified.
The evidence, as shown by the bill of exceptions, establishes the following state of facts: One J. L. Landrum owned ticket No 93,890 in the April, 1889, drawing of the Louisiana State Lottery. Plaintiff purchased said ticket, or an interest in the same, from said Landrum, and, after the said ticket had drawn a prize of $5,000, said Landrum also claimed said ticket. Upon the ticket having been lost, the defendant, as attorney for J. L. Landrum, agreed that said Landrum would pay plaintiff $1,000 out of the said $5,000 if he (plaintiff) would withdraw his claim to said ticket, and upon testifying as to the loss of the same, aid said Landrum in collecting the amount drawn by said ticket in the lottery. Thereupon plaintiff made an affidavit that he had purchased said ticket from said Landrum, and that said Landrum then owned the ticket; that said ticket was lost, and he authorized the payment of said $5,000 to defendant. At the same time plaintiff released all interest in said ticket except as to the $1,000, and appointed defendant as his agent to collect the money due on said ticket. Some time after that the said Landrum commenced a suit in New Orleans, La., against the lottery company for said $5,000. During the progress of said suit, interrogatories in the same were propounded to plaintiff and to one Bryant. After having heard the answers given by the said Bryant to the said interrogatories, the plaintiff refused to testify to the same thing as had Bryant saying that Bryant had not told the truth. Thereupon the said defendant told plaintiff that he and Landrum would not any longer be bound by the agreement to pay him, plaintiff, the said $1,000. Plaintiff thereupon, through his attorney interposed his claim in the suit of Landrum against the lottery company, by what is known in the state of Louisiana as an "intervention." After the intervention was filed, another agreement was entered into on February 13 1890, by and between plaintiff and defendant, by the terms of which defendant agreed that, in consideration of plaintiff's intervention being discontinued, he would hold $1,000 of the amount collected from said lottery company to await the result of a contest in the courts of Jefferson county, Ala., between plaintiff and Landrum, to determine which one of them was entitled to the said amount. Plaintiff's intervention was withdrawn, and after the said lottery had paid the $5,000, defendant refused to pay the $1,000 to plaintiff after having said to him that he had the $1,000 in his possession, but would not pay it until ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Nat. Bank v. Chaffin
...on the original obligation,-since"since recovery could be had on the notes themselves without the new promise. The case of Myers v. Byars, 99 Ala. 484, 12 So. 430, upon reliance is put by appellant in this connection, is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. In that case Myers agree......
- Little v. Lischkoff
-
McConnell v. Worns
...cannot be entertained. He is estopped to deny he had money in hand, of the contractor, sufficient is amount to pay plaintiffs. Myers v. Byars, (Ala.) 12 So. 430. disposes of all the matters assigned as error which have been insisted on in argument. Affirmed. ...