Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Brantley

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtHEAD, J.
Citation107 Ala. 683,18 So. 321
PartiesPOSTAL TELEGRAPH CABLE CO. v. BRANTLEY.
Decision Date31 July 1895

18 So. 321

107 Ala. 683

POSTAL TELEGRAPH CABLE CO.
v.
BRANTLEY.

Supreme Court of Alabama

July 31, 1895


Appeal from circuit court, Washington county; James T. Jones, Judge.

Action by James S. Brantley against the Postal Telegraph Cable Company to recover the statutory penalty for cutting certain trees on the lands of plaintiff. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

This was an action brought on September 8, 1893, by the appellee, James S. Brantley, against the appellant, the Postal Telegraph Cable Company, to recover the statutory penalty for willfully and knowingly cutting certain trees from the lands of the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and, by special plea, that its agents, employés, and servants were not authorized to do the acts complained of in the complaint. Issue was joined upon these pleas. The plaintiff, on being introduced as a witness, testified that the lands described in the complaint formerly belonged to his mother, and he thereupon offered in evidence a deed from R. B. Starke and Sarah Starke to his mother, purporting to convey the lands described in the complaint and also 30 additional acres. This deed was dated April 27, 1869. It was not witnessed, but was acknowledged, but it was neither stamped nor recorded. The defendant objected to the introduction in evidence of this deed, on the ground that it was not self-proving. The bill of exceptions recites that "counsel for plaintiff did not insist upon the introduction of said deed, but attempted to prove title by adverse possession. The court, of its own motion, asked how long the deed had been executed, and upon ascertaining the date of its execution said that it would allow the plaintiff to introduce the same as color of title without further proof. It was thereupon introduced by the plaintiff to show color of title, and to the action of the court allowing such introduction of said instrument, the defendant excepted." The plaintiff, as a witness, further testified that his mother died in 1879, leaving two sons; that his brother died in 1883, intestate and without issue; that after his mother's death he and his brother occupied and claimed the land as theirs, and since his brother's death he had been in the actual, open, notorious, and continuous possession of the same, claiming it against all the world. The plaintiff further testified to facts tending to show acts of ownership and possession of the property described in the complaint. He further testified that he did not give the defendant permission to cut the trees and saplings as charged in the complaint; that he did not see any one cut the timber, but the day or two before he had seen a squad of hands cutting down trees along the public road near his place, and asked them whose line it was they were constructing. Witness was then asked what reply he received to this inquiry. The defendant objected to this question, because it called for irrelevant and immaterial matters, and hearsay and incompetent evidence, and because the defendant was not bound by the declarations of the persons making them. The court overruled this objection, and the defendant duly excepted. The witness answered, "That a negro workman of said squad replied, 'Postal Telegraph Company."' Thereupon the defendant moved the court to exclude this answer, upon the same grounds upon which the objection to the question was based, and duly excepted to the court's overruling its objection. The plaintiff introduced another witness, who testified that he had counted the number of trees cut, and stated the result of such count. This was all the evidence introduced. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Alabama Power Co. v. Bodine, 8 Div. 788
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 22, 1925
    ...negligence or the wanton or willful act of the servant. Gilliam v. S. & N.A.R.R. Co., 70 Ala. 268. In Postal Telegraph Co. v. Brantley, 107 Ala. 683, 18 So. 321, and Postal Telegraph Co. v. Lenoir, 107 Ala. 640, 18 So. 266, this rule was declared applicable in actions for the statutory pena......
  • W.E. Belcher Lumber Co. v. York, 7 Div. 777.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 24, 1944
    ...intrusted to him, though the employer did not authorize or ratify such conduct or had prohibited it. Postal Tel. Co. v. Brantley, 107 Ala. 683(7), 18 So. 321; Miller Brent Lumber Co. v. Stewart, 166 Ala. 657(7), 51 So. 943, 21 Ann.Cas. 1149; 35 Amer.Jur. 993, section 559. This liability doe......
  • Highland Ave. & B.R. Co. v. Robinson
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • April 17, 1900
    ...of this court. Gilliam v. Railroad Co., 70 Ala. 268; Railway Co. v. Wildman, 119 Ala. 565, 24 So. 764; Cable Co. v. Brantley, 107 Ala. 638, 18 So. 321. And in such case there may be recovery of punitive damages. Telegraph Co. v. Seed, 115 Ala. 670, 22 So. 474; Telegraph Co. v. Cunningham, 9......
  • Gaynor v. Louisville & N.R. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 28, 1903
    ...634, 22 So. 859; Gafford v. State, 125 Ala. 1, 28 So. 406; Gary v. Woodham, 103 Ala. 421, 15 So. 840; Postal Telegraph Co. v. Brantley, 107 Ala. 683, 18 So. 321; Crawford v. McLeod, 64 Ala. 240; Baker v. Russell, 41 Ala. 279; Moore v. Robinson, 62 Ala. 537. We find no error in the rulings o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Alabama Power Co. v. Bodine, 8 Div. 788
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 22, 1925
    ...negligence or the wanton or willful act of the servant. Gilliam v. S. & N.A.R.R. Co., 70 Ala. 268. In Postal Telegraph Co. v. Brantley, 107 Ala. 683, 18 So. 321, and Postal Telegraph Co. v. Lenoir, 107 Ala. 640, 18 So. 266, this rule was declared applicable in actions for the statutory pena......
  • W.E. Belcher Lumber Co. v. York, 7 Div. 777.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 24, 1944
    ...intrusted to him, though the employer did not authorize or ratify such conduct or had prohibited it. Postal Tel. Co. v. Brantley, 107 Ala. 683(7), 18 So. 321; Miller Brent Lumber Co. v. Stewart, 166 Ala. 657(7), 51 So. 943, 21 Ann.Cas. 1149; 35 Amer.Jur. 993, section 559. This liability doe......
  • Highland Ave. & B.R. Co. v. Robinson
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • April 17, 1900
    ...of this court. Gilliam v. Railroad Co., 70 Ala. 268; Railway Co. v. Wildman, 119 Ala. 565, 24 So. 764; Cable Co. v. Brantley, 107 Ala. 638, 18 So. 321. And in such case there may be recovery of punitive damages. Telegraph Co. v. Seed, 115 Ala. 670, 22 So. 474; Telegraph Co. v. Cunningham, 9......
  • Gaynor v. Louisville & N.R. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 28, 1903
    ...634, 22 So. 859; Gafford v. State, 125 Ala. 1, 28 So. 406; Gary v. Woodham, 103 Ala. 421, 15 So. 840; Postal Telegraph Co. v. Brantley, 107 Ala. 683, 18 So. 321; Crawford v. McLeod, 64 Ala. 240; Baker v. Russell, 41 Ala. 279; Moore v. Robinson, 62 Ala. 537. We find no error in the rulings o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT