Robinson Lumber Co. v. Sager

Citation75 So. 309,199 Ala. 675
Decision Date19 April 1917
Docket Number5 Div. 658
PartiesROBINSON LUMBER CO. v. SAGER.
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

Appeal from Circuit Court, Elmore County; W.W. Pearson, Judge.

Action by J.H. Sager against the Robinson Lumber Company. From a judgment, sustaining judgments in justice court for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Acts 1911, p. 450, § 6. Reversed and remanded.

Frank W. Lull, of Wetumpka, for appellant.

J.M. Holley, of Wetumpka, for appellee.

McCLELLAN, J.

This suit was begun in a justice's court, by Sager against the Robinson Lumber Company, the trade-name in which W.C. Robinson conducted his lumber business, and was carried by appeal to the circuit court. The complaint in the circuit court contained the single common count, which claimed as for work and labor done by the plaintiff for the defendant.

During the trial the plaintiff was permitted, over defendant's objection, to amend the complaint by introducing W.C. Bullard as the nominal plaintiff, suing for the use of Sager. There was no error in allowing this amendment, nor in overruling defendant's objection. Smith v. Yearwood, 73 So. 384, where the point was ruled against the defendant's (appellant's) contention. The introduction of Bullard did not effect a change of party plaintiff; the usee, Sager, being throughout the real, sole party plaintiff.

From the evidence it appears that the contract for services upon which the plaintiff relies was a contract made with Ballard, not with the defendant. The existence of an express contract, which was here shown, precludes the legal implication of an obligation with respect to the same subject-matter. A.G.S. v. Moore, 109 Ala. 393, 19 So. 804; Alexander v. Ala. Wes. R.R. Co., 179 Ala. 480, 484, 485, 60 So. 295. The plaintiff was not entitled to recover on the common count stated, not having a contractual relation with the defendant, and his services being rendered under such circumstances as forbid recourse to an implied contract.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

ANDERSON, C.J., and SAYRE and GARDNER, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Ingram v. Evans, 7 Div. 98.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 16 Marzo 1933
    ...... Power Company v. Hamilton, 201 Ala. 62, 77 So. 356;. Robinson Lumber Co. v. Sager, 199 Ala. 675, 75 So. 309) not prescribed by law. Peinhardt v. West, 212. ......
  • Sovereign Camp, W.O.W. v. Reed
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 16 Noviembre 1922
    ...... in form required by law of such suits. Smith v. Yearwood, 197 Ala. 680, 73 So. 384; Robinson Lumber. Co. v. Sager, 199 Ala. 675, 75 So. 309; Alabama. Power Co. v. Hamilton, 201 Ala. 62, ......
  • Redline Steel LLC v. Nukon Lazer Makine Metal Sanayi Ve Tic, A.S.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • 8 Octubre 2021
    ......1989); Hendrix, Mohr & Yardley, Inc. v. City of Daphne, 359 So.2d 792 (Ala. 1978); Robinson. Lumber Co. v. Sager, 75 So. 309 (Ala. 1917)); U.S. Fidelity v. U.S. Sports Specialty, ......
  • Contractors v. Tuskegee Univ.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Alabama
    • 10 Diciembre 2010
    ...Bd. of Educ., 544 So. 2d 962 (Ala. 1989); Hendrix, Mohr & Yardley, Inc. v. City ofDaphne, 359 So. 2d 792 (Ala. 1978); Robinson Lumber Co. v. Sager, 75 So. 309 (Ala. 1917)). The additional work for which M&E seeks payment clearly relates to the same subject matter as the original contract be......
  • 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