Seals Piano & Organ Co. v. Bell

• Decision Date: 20 January 1920
• Docket Number: 3 Div. 347
• Citation: 84 So. 779,17 Ala.App. 331
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals
• Parties: SEALS PIANO & ORGAN CO. v. BELL et al.

84 So. 779

17 Ala.App. 331

SEALS PIANO & ORGAN CO. v. BELL et al.

3 Div. 347

Court of Appeals of Alabama

January 20, 1920

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Leon McCord, Judge.

Action by the Seals Piano & Organ Company against N.J. Bell and others, executors, for damages for wrongful attachment. From an insufficient judgment for plaintiff, it appeals. Affirmed.

S.W Warrick, being on the stand, was asked by the plaintiff "I will ask you if, after the issuance of the attachment, there was any difference, or if you had any difficulty in purchasing goods on the same terms." The question was objected to, and the objection overruled. Witness answered: "I do not think our credit was as good." The court sustained a motion to exclude the answer. The same witness was asked the question set out in the opinion, and objection was sustained.

Assignment of error 4:

Question to same witness: "I will ask you whether or not, after the issuance of the attachment, any piano manufacturer, within six months after the issuance of the attachment, declined to sell pianos to your company upon as just terms as before the issuance of the attachment."

Assignment 5:

Question to same witness: "Did any piano manufacturer ever refuse to sell you pianos on credit before the issuance of the attachment?"

Assignment 6:

Charge 5. "If the jury believe the evidence in this case, you cannot assess vindictive damages against the defendants."

Charge 13. "If any one juror be not reasonably satisfied from the evidence that plaintiff is entitled to recover any amount for loss of business and damage to credit, you cannot assess damages against the defendants for these two items or elements of damage."

Charge 12. "If after a fair consideration of all the evidence in the case the jury are not reasonably satisfied as to the amount of damages plaintiff may have sustained by reason of loss of business, if they should find from the evidence that plaintiff has sustained any damages on account of loss of business by reason of the suing out of the attachment, they can only assess nominal damages for loss of business."

The judgment was for plaintiff in the sum of $443.

For further discussions of the questions involved in this case see Bell et al. v. Seals Piano & Organ Co., 201 Ala 428, 78 So. 806; Id., 196 Ala. 290, 71 So. 340.

Tilley & Elmore and W.A. Gunter, all of Montgomery, for appellant.

Rushton, Williams & Crenshaw, of Montgomery, for appellees.

SAMFORD J.

The court did not err in sustaining the motion of the defendant to exclude the answer, "I do not think our credit was as good." This answer was not responsive to the question asked. Besides, the question did not limit the inquiry to the effect of the attachment on plaintiff's credit. The condition of the market may have been different, or many other things not affected by the attachment.

The court did not commit reversible error in sustaining defendant's objection to pl...