Peppers v. Agee Mercantile Co., 8 Div. 678.

• Decision Date: 03 October 1933
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 678.
• Citation: 25 Ala.App. 548,149 So. 876
• Parties: PEPPERS v. AGEE MERCANTILE CO.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

149 So. 876

25 Ala.App. 548

PEPPERS v. AGEE MERCANTILE CO.

8 Div. 678.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

October 3, 1933

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; A. E. Hawkins, Judge.

Action on account by Agee Mercantile Company (J. M. Agee, owner) against J. L. Peppers. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Street & Bradford, of Guntersville, for appellant.

John W Brown, of Boaz, for appellee.

BRICKEN Presiding Judge.

This suit originated in the justice of the peace court; the action being on open account. From an adverse judgment in said court, the defendant (appellant) appealed to the circuit court, where the cause was tried by the court without a jury. After hearing the evidence, which was in conflict, the court rendered the following judgment against the defendant, to wit:

"Agee Mercantile Company, J. M. Agee, Owner,

Vs. J. L. Peppers.

"No. 2644

"On this the 22nd day of July, 1932, come the parties by attorney and no jury being demanded to try the issues in this case the Court proceeds to hear the evidence. The evidence being submitted to and duly considered by the Court, it is ordered and adjudged by the Court that the issues are in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant and his sureties on his appeal bond and the Court ascertains the amount due the plaintiff to be One Hundred Dollars, together with the cost of this suit for which let execution issue."

From said judgment this appeal was taken.

Pending the trial of this case in the court below, numerous exceptions were reserved to the rulings of the court upon the admission of evidence; the assignments of error are predicated on these rulings. These points of decision require no specific discussion, for the rule is: When a cause is tried by the court without a jury, the judgment will not be reversed on the grounds of the admission of immaterial or incompetent evidence, if sufficient proper evidence was submitted to sustain the finding. Ramey v. W. O. Peeples Grocery Co., 108 Ala. 476, 18 So. 805. In that case the court held that, in considering judgments rendered by the court upon the facts, without the intervention of a jury, the findings of the court will not be disturbed in any case, where the findings of a jury to the same effect would be allowed to stand. And in such case the admission of illegal or irrelevant evidence will not work a reversal, if the judgment is sustained by legal evidence. Berlin Machine Works v. Alabama City Furniture Co., 112 Ala. 488, 20 So. 418.

As stated above, the evidence in this case was in conflict. The plaintiff offered evidence tending to...