Simon v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 15 January 1895
• Citation: 16 So. 884,105 Ala. 344
• Parties: SIMON ET AL. v. JOHNSON.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

16 So. 884

105 Ala. 344

SIMON ET AL. v. JOHNSON.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 15, 1895

Appeal from circuit court, Geneva county; J. M. Carmichael, Judge.

Action by Joseph Simon & Son against J. J. Johnson for goods sold and delivered. Judgment was rendered for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

The complaint contained the common counts. Issue was joined on the plea of the general issue. The plaintiffs introduced in evidence verified statements of an account for goods sold by them to the defendant. Upon the defendant being introduced as a witness in his own behalf, he testified that he bought the bill of goods contained in the statements introduced in evidence from Joseph Simon & Son, through one J. B. Carlisle the traveling salesman of the plaintiff firm; that the goods were bought with the privilege of paying for them on the receipt of the invoice for them, in order to obtain discount that some time after he received the goods he paid the amount of the bill to J. B. Carlisle, less the discount, and took a receipt therefor, with the name of Joseph Simon & Son signed to it by J. B. Carlisle. Plaintiffs objected to the defendant testifying that he paid the amount of the bill to J. B Carlisle, and moved to exclude such testimony from the jury on the grounds-First, that there was no evidence showing that Carlisle had the authority to sign their name; and, second because the testimony was irrelevant. The court overruled this objection and motion, and the plaintiffs excepted. The defendant then offered in evidence the receipt which was given in the name of Joseph Simon & Son by J. B. Carlisle. To the introduction of this receipt in evidence the plaintiffs objected on the following grounds: (1 Said receipt is irrelevant; (2) it is not shown by the evidence that Carlisle had the authority to collect the money; (3) it is not shown that Carlisle had the authority to sign the name of Simon &amp Son to said receipt. The court overruled the plaintiffs' motion, and allowed said receipt to be introduced in evidence. To this ruling the plaintiffs duly excepted. In the deposition of J. B. Carlisle, which was introduced in evidence by the plaintiffs, the witness testified that he had received the money from the defendant in payment of the goods sold him by Joseph Simon & Son while he was their traveling salesman, but that he had no authority to collect the money, and was not authorized to sign the name of Joseph Simon & Son to the receipt. This witness further testified that, upon his admitting to Joseph Simon & Son his having collected the money, they agreed to retain a certain portion of his salary in payment of the amount which he had received from the defendant, and that they did this for two months, after the lapse of which time he was discharged. The plaintiffs introduced in evidence their deposition, in which they denied having given the...