Neff v. Williamson

• Decision Date: 09 April 1908
• Citation: 154 Ala. 329,46 So. 238
• Parties: NEFF v. WILLIAMSON.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

46 So. 238

154 Ala. 329

NEFF v. WILLIAMSON.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 9, 1908

Appeal from Circuit Court, Colbert County; C. P. Almon, Judge.

Action by I. M. Williamson against Ann Neff. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Action in assumpsit for wages or salary alleged to be due plaintiff on a contract of employment made between plaintiff and defendant to take charge of and manage a saloon in Decatur Ala. The only material matter in dispute is that of employment. The evidence for plaintiff tended to show that he agreed with defendant to run the saloon at $40 per month, and immediately thereon went to Decatur and worked in the saloon until about July 2, 1906; that up to that time business had been conducted by defendant's nephew, Arledge. The contention of defendant is that she made no contract of employment with plaintiff.

During the examination of plaintiff a certain check, and also a note, both of which were drawn and executed by plaintiff in favor of certain creditors of the saloon business at Decatur and in payment of the obligations of the business, were allowed to be introduced in evidence over the objection of defendant; but the court at the time stated to the jury that they were admitted only, and were to be considered by them only, in connection with the plaintiff's evidence, to determine whether or not he was transacting the business as he claimed.

The plaintiff requested the following charge: "Gentlemen of the jury, I charge you that if you believe from the evidence that Mrs. Neff employed Williamson at the sum of $40 per month, and that Williamson performed the services for which he has sued, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff even though you do not find from the evidence that Mrs. Neff had any interest in the saloon, and that it belonged to Arledge."

The defendant requested the following written charges, which the court refused to give: "(1) The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, and unless the evidence shows to your reasonable satisfaction that Mrs. Neff employed Williamson for herself and promised to pay him a certain sum for such services you should find for the defendant. (2) There is no evidence, gentlemen, of the time of service, and I direct you to find a verdict for the defendant." (3) The general affirmative charge.

James H. Branch and James Jackson, for appellant.

Kirk Carmichael & Rahter, for appellee.

ANDERSON J.

As...