Selman v. Moore
Decision Date | 31 October 1944 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 416. |
Parties | SELMAN et al. v. MOORE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County W.J. Haralson, judge.
M.F Lusk, of Guntersville, for appellants.
Mack Killcrease, of Albertville, for appellee.
There are two counts in the complaint, detinue and on a promissory note. As we construe the record, appellants have abandoned all insistences presented by the detinue count so far as concerns this appeal. It will be so treated.
The promissory note, the basis for the second count of the complaint, was given to appellants by appellee for the purchase price of a mule. To the count declaring on this note appellee filed special pleas in which the position is asserted that appellants warranted the mule to be sound and free from disease and defects, when as a matter of fact the mule was sick or diseased at the time of the sale and the execution of the promissory note for the purchase price thereof; that these facts were known to appellants; that shortly thereafter, as a result of said sickness or disease the mule died.
To these pleas the appellants interposed a general replication or denial, and in addition filed a special replication as follows:
The trial court gave the following written charge at the instance of appellee: "The Court charges the jury that unless you believe from a fair consideration of all the evidence that the plaintiff offered another mule to the defendant of equal value of the one that was sold by plaintiff to defendant then you cannot find a verdict in favor of plaintiff."
It is urged here that in giving this charge the court fell into error. We are in accord with this view and will undertake to demonstrate the reasons for our conclusions.
The evidence is not free of controversy in many particulars concerning the agreement and understanding of the parties relating to the mule trade. We will not discuss the tendencies of the evidence "pro and con" pertinent thereto, but it appears clearly that a disputed issue of facts arose from the testimony on the averments of appellee's pleas. The general replication put in issue the truth of all...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Champion v. Gaines
...duty of the trial court to submit to the jury all material issues in the case which have any support from the evidence. Selman v. Moore, 31 Ala.App. 534, 19 So.2d 548; Ala. Digest, Trial, The record discloses as evidence of appellee's damages for the alleged breach of an agreement to proper......
-
Jennings v. Walling
...134 So. 4; Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc. v. Greathouse, 242 Ala. 529, 7 So.2d 89, and by the Court of Appeals in Selman v. Moore, 31 Ala.App. 534, 19 So.2d 548. all, therefore, the question is to be determined upon a proper construction of the charge. Does it in fact violate the foreg......
- State v. Smith, 7 Div. 806.