Robinson Lumber Co. v. Sager, 5 Div. 658
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | McCLELLAN, J. |
| Citation | 75 So. 309,199 Ala. 675 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 658 |
| Decision Date | 19 April 1917 |
| Parties | ROBINSON LUMBER CO. v. SAGER. |
75 So. 309
199 Ala. 675
ROBINSON LUMBER CO.
v.
SAGER.
5 Div. 658
Supreme Court of Alabama
April 19, 1917
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 [75 So. 310.] 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
-
Ingram v. Evans, 7 Div. 98.
...name of the party who is the obligee in a bond (Alabama 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 Ala. 83, 101 So. 736. The city of Attalla is alleged to be the obligee in the bon......
-
Sovereign Camp, W.O.W. v. Reed, 7 Div. 240.
...a next friend, and were 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, 66, 77 So. 356; Wynn v. Hoffman, 203 Ala. 72, 73, 82 So. 32. There was no prejudici......
-
Redline Steel LLC v. Nukon Lazer Makine Metal Sanayi Ve Tic, A.S., 5:19-cv-01445-MHH
...Educ., 544 So.2d 962 (Ala. 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, 270 P.3d 464, 468-69 (Utah 2012) (“‘[W]here an express contract covering the subject m......
-
Contractors v. Tuskegee Univ., CASE NO. 3: 10-CV-26-WKW [WO]
...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 between the part......
-
Ingram v. Evans, 7 Div. 98.
...name of the party who is the obligee in a bond (Alabama 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 Ala. 83, 101 So. 736. The city of Attalla is alleged to be the obligee in the bon......
-
Sovereign Camp, W.O.W. v. Reed, 7 Div. 240.
...a next friend, and were 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, 66, 77 So. 356; Wynn v. Hoffman, 203 Ala. 72, 73, 82 So. 32. There was no prejudici......
-
Redline Steel LLC v. Nukon Lazer Makine Metal Sanayi Ve Tic, A.S., 5:19-cv-01445-MHH
...Educ., 544 So.2d 962 (Ala. 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, 270 P.3d 464, 468-69 (Utah 2012) (“‘[W]here an express contract covering the subject m......
-
Contractors v. Tuskegee Univ., CASE NO. 3: 10-CV-26-WKW [WO]
...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 between the part......