Oil-Well Supply Co. v. West Huntsville Cotton Mills Co.

• Decision Date: 16 November 1916
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 949
• Citation: 198 Ala. 501,73 So. 899
• Parties: OIL-WELL SUPPLY CO. v. WEST HUNTSVILLE COTTON MILLS CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

73 So. 899

198 Ala. 501

OIL-WELL SUPPLY CO. v. WEST HUNTSVILLE COTTON MILLS CO.

8 Div. 949

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 16, 1916

On Rehearing, Jan. 18, 1917

Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Madison County; J.H. Ballentine Judge.

Assumpsit by the Oil-Well Supply Company against the West Huntsville Cotton Mills Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. (Transferred from the Court of Appeals under Acts 1911, p. 450, § 6.) Reversed and remanded. The complaint declares as to goods sold and delivered, and the plea was the general issue.

David A. Grayson and M.U. Griffin, both of Huntsville, for appellant.

Cooper & Cooper, of Huntsville, for appellee.

ANDERSON C.J.

While the order was written upon the letter head of the West Huntsville Cotton Mill Company and signed by Pratt as president, the order was not signed by said West Huntsville Company, or by Pratt as president of said company, and the only thing to indicate that the order was for said company was the use of its stationery and the fact that Pratt was president of said company, and this was not conclusive that the order was for the said West Huntsville Company. There was proof that there was a New York & Alabama Oil Company of which Pratt was president, that the appellant had previous dealings with this company, and had in fact received notice prior to the shipment of the articles here involved, that they were ordered by and for the New York & Alabama Oil Company. Therefore it was a question for the jury as to whether or not the order was sent in for the appellee or the New York & Alabama Oil Company, and whether or not the appellant knew that the goods were ordered for and intended to be used by said New York & Alabama Company. The trial court did not err in admitting the letters and telegrams covering the transaction. The letter of November 10, 1911 from the appellant to Pratt as president of the New York &amp Alabama Company related to other goods, and no way tended to show that the present order was for said New York & Alabama Company, but it was admissible, in connection with the other evidence, to show that appellant knew of both companies, and knew that Pratt was president of both of them. The letter of November 13, 1911, signed by Pratt as president of the New York & Alabama Company, was properly admitted in evidence, as it was a question for the jury as to whether or not appellant received it before the shipment of the goods, and whether or not it put it on notice that the goods were being purchased for the New York & Alabama Company or the West Huntsville Company. While the second count was upon an order given by the defendant, we do not think that the defendant...