Sanders v. Edmonds

• Decision Date: 20 June 1893
• Citation: 98 Ala. 157,13 So. 505
• Parties: SANDERS v. EDMONDS.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

13 So. 505

98 Ala. 157

SANDERS v. EDMONDS.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 20, 1893

Appeal from circuit court, Sumter county; S. H. Sprott, Judge.

Assumpsit by J. B. Sanders against William Edmonds to recover a balance due on a contract. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

W. K Smith, for appellant.

J. J Altman, for appellee.

HARALSON J.

The plaintiff was the only witness examined in the cause. By his evidence it appeared that he was under written contract with the defendant to work for him during the year 1887 for $250 and for 144 pounds of bacon and 12 bushels of meal; that he received from defendant $200, and the bacon and meal; that after he had performed the year's work, the defendant presented him with his account for the year, which showed a balance due him of $5.77; that defendant, in said account allowed him only $200 for services; and that he still owed him $50, which he demanded, and defendant refused to pay. On his cross-examination he stated that defendant presented him in January, 1888, with his account for 1887, which account showed that defendant owed him $5.77, which he paid to plaintiff, and which he accepted. But he does not say he accepted that sum in full payment and discharge of the balance due and claimed on said account; and whether he did or not was a question of fact properly to be left to the determination of the jury, under appropriate instructions from the court. The plaintiff's evidence tends to show that he did not accept said sum intending it to be in payment of the amount he claimed as the balance due on the account for the year, but that he accepted the same as a payment on that balance. For the defendant, it may be said, the evidence was not without tendencies to show that plaintiff did accept said sum in full payment. The court thought so, for it gave the general charge in favor of the defendant, which was improper in the state of proof as shown.

We have repeatedly held that when the evidence is conflicting, or where different inferences can be reasonably drawn from it or where there is any evidence tending to establish the case of the other party, the general affirmative charge should never be given. Bromly v. Railroad Co., (Ala.) 11 South. Rep. 341, and authorities there cited. The bill of exceptions does not purport to set out all the evidence, and the rule in such case is that presumption will be indulged that there was...