Russellville Flower Craft, Inc. v. Searcy
Decision Date | 01 June 1984 |
Citation | 452 So.2d 478 |
Parties | RUSSELLVILLE FLOWER CRAFT, INC. v. Olen SEARCY. 82-1188. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
William M. Bouldin of Guin, Bouldin & Alexander, Russellville, for appellant.
Eddie Beason of Fine & Associates, Russellville, for appellee.
Appellant-defendant, Russellville Flower Craft, Inc. (Flower Craft), was found by a jury to be liable to appellee-plaintiff, Olen Searcy, for breach of a written contract for the lease of motor vehicles. Damages to Searcy were assessed by the jury and judgment was entered by the trial court in accordance with the jury's verdict. Flower Craft appeals from that judgment.
Olen Searcy began, in approximately 1954, to lease trucks to Flower Craft for the transportation of artificial flowers and floral supplies to various locations. During the period between 1954 and 1971, the parties operated pursuant to an oral contract. The parties first entered into a written contract in 1971. In October of 1973, Searcy and Flower Craft entered into a written agreement that Searcy provide for Flower Craft the use of six (6) vehicles. Payment to Searcy was to be made according to the mileage. The contract guaranteed mileage of 325,000 at a rate of twenty-six cents per mile with some provisions for fluctuations in fuel prices.
Flower Craft terminated the lease in October of 1974 when 281,076 miles had been logged on the trucks and paid for by Flower Craft. Searcy sued to recover monies he contended were due him under the guaranteed mileage clause.
At trial, the central dispute between the parties was whether the 1973 contract between Searcy and Flower Craft provided the trucks were to be used exclusively by Flower Craft. Flower Craft contended Searcy had breached their agreement by "backhauling," the practice of loading the trucks with goods belonging to other merchants for the return trips. Searcy contended the contract was not exclusive and allowed for this practice.
The first, and primary, issue raised by Flower Craft on appeal is whether the trial court erred by admitting extrinsic evidence to aid in the interpretation of the 1973 written contract.
It is axiomatic that rulings as to the admissibility of evidence rest largely within the discretion of the trial court. Such rulings will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a gross abuse of discretion. Dorcal, Inc. v. Xerox, 398 So.2d 665 (Ala.1981). We conclude that there was, in this case, no such abuse of discretion by the trial court.
While the trial court made no express finding that the contract was ambiguous, it, over objection by Flower Craft, allowed evidence regarding prior and subsequent contracts to be admitted to clarify the issue of exclusivity. In cases where there is no express finding by the trial court on a necessary matter, this court will presume such a finding was made if supported by the evidence. Matter of Estate of Amason, 369 So.2d 786 (Ala.1979); White v. White, 350 So.2d 326 (Ala.1977). The record reveals that, at least as to the practice of "backhauling," the 1973 contract was ambiguous.
The record further reveals that extrinsic evidence was admitted for a limited purpose and the jury was adequately instructed that that evidence was to be considered in order to determine the intention of the parties in entering into the 1973 contract, and only for that limited purpose. For instance, the jury was instructed as follows regarding their proper consideration of the 1971 contract offered by the plaintiff as evidence:
A more involved instruction was given the jury regarding the proper consideration of other extrinsic evidence admitted by the trial court:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lassiter v. Alabama A & M University, Bd. of Trustees
...at all circumstances surrounding formation of contract) (quoting Alabama Pattern Jury Instructions), accord, Russellville Flower Craft, Inc. v. Searcy, 452 So.2d 478 (Ala.1984). And, more than one inference about the contract's duration can be drawn from plaintiff's evidence in this case. C......
-
Super Valu Stores, Inc. v. Peterson
...that a trial judge's comment on the evidence justifies reversal only if it causes "discernible prejudice." Russellville Flower Craft, Inc. v. Searcy, 452 So.2d 478, 482 (Ala.1984). The short statement made by the trial judge, directed to counsel, in the context of a proceeding spanning over......
-
Illinois Cent. Gulf R. Co. v. Haynes
...trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial judge is guilty of 'gross' abuse of discretion. Russellville Flower Craft v. Searcy, 452 So.2d 478 (Ala.1984), Dorcal, Inc. v. Xerox, 398 So.2d 665 (Ala.1987 [1981] Even assuming that the admission of the prior consistent stat......
-
State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Sawyer
...were in evidence. Our analysis of this issue begins with the standard of review this Court set forth in Russellville Flower Craft, Inc. v. Searcy, 452 So.2d 478, 480 (Ala.1984): "It is axiomatic that rulings as to the admissibility of evidence rest largely within the discretion of the trial......