Pike County v. Hanchey

• Citation: 119 Ala. 36,24 So. 751
• Parties: PIKE COUNTY v. HANCHEY ET AL.
• Decision Date: 05 November 1898
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

24 So. 751

119 Ala. 36

PIKE COUNTY v. HANCHEY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 5, 1898

Appeal from circuit court, Pike county; W. L. Parks, Special Judge.

Action by Pike county against W. E. Hanchey and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

This action was brought by Pike county against W. E. Hanchey and the sureties on a bond that she gave for the performance of a contract for the hire of a convict from Pike county. The complaint contained four counts. The first count claimed a designated sum of money due upon a bond executed by the defendants. The substance of the second and third counts is stated in the opinion. The fourth count was as follows "(4) Plaintiff claims of defendants twenty-four dollars for work and labor done by the convict, W. E. Baker, named in said Exhibit A, from the 3d day of April, 1894, to the 3d day of October, 1894." The defendants demurred to the second count upon the ground that it attempts to show wherein the bond sued on is broken, without setting out the conditions of the bond. To the third count the defendants demurred upon the following grounds: (1) Because it fails to show that the defendants, by themselves, or any one for them, ever entered into a bond or contract with the plaintiff, or any one for plaintiff, for the hire of William E. Baker as a convict; (2) because it does not set out the conditions of the contract or bond sued upon. To the fourth count the defendants demurred upon the following ground: "(1) Because it claims a certain sum for work and labor done by a convict, W. E Baker, and fails to show that defendants, or any one for them, ever entered into a bond or contract with plaintiff for the hire of said W. E. Baker as a convict, or ever received any work and labor done by said W. E. Baker as a convict from plaintiff." This demurrer was overruled, and the defendants duly excepted. The defendants pleaded the general issue, and several special pleas, setting up in various ways that the contract was not made as authorized by law, and that there was a failure of consideration, in that W. E. Baker the convict hired by the defendant Hanchey, was, during the term of his hire, incapacitated, by reason of sickness, to perform the work for which he was hired. There was attached to the complaint a copy of a contract and bond. The contract recited that P. O. Harper, "hard-labor agent duly appointed by the commissioners' court, acting for and in behalf and for the use of Pike county, has hired to W. E Hanchey, of the county of Pike, said state, one William E Baker, a convict, within the term covered by this contract." It was stipulated in said contract that said W. E. Hanchey "shall pay to the county of Pike the sum of four dollars per month, payable quarterly," for the hire of said Baker. By the bond, the defendants, who were the makers thereof, bound themselves "unto the county of Pike, in said state, in the penal sum of forty-eight dollars"; and the condition of the bond was that W. E Hanchey should pay the amount agreed to be paid by the contract for the hire of said convict, and take care of him and provide for him as required by statute and as specified in the bond. On the trial of the case the plaintiff introduced in evidence the following minutes of the commissioners' court of Pike county: (1) The minutes of the regular term of the commissioners' court of Pike county held on November 6, 1893, which showed an order by the court making P. O. Harper hard-labor agent for the county; (2) the minutes of the regular term of the commissioners' court held on November 5, 1894, showing an order appointing P. O. Harper as hard-labor agent, and providing further that the contracts for the hire of the convicts already made by said P. O. Harper remain in force until February term of the court. These minutes of the court were offered in evidence together, and to the introduction of them the defendants objected. The court sustained the objection, and to this ruling the plaintiff duly excepted. The plaintiff offered in evidence the bond and contract upon which the suit was founded, and which were attached to the plaintiff's complaint, and marked "Exhibit A." The defendants objected to the...