Sinclair Refining Co. v. Robertson, 8 Div. 327.
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | FOSTER, Justice. |
| Citation | 247 Ala. 260,23 So.2d 872 |
| Parties | SINCLAIR REFINING CO. v. ROBERTSON. |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 327. |
| Decision Date | 18 October 1945 |
23 So.2d 872
247 Ala. 260
SINCLAIR REFINING CO.
v.
ROBERTSON.
8 Div. 327.
Supreme Court of Alabama
October 18, 1945
Rehearing Denied Nov. 29, 1945.
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
[247 Ala. 261] [23 So.2d 873] Marion F. Lusk, of Guntersville, for petitioner.
P. W. Shumate, of Guntersville, opposed.
FOSTER, Justice.
This is an action on an account stated. The appeal is from a judgment granting defendant a new trial after a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. The new trial was granted on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evidence. On a review of the Court of Appeals affirming the lower court in that regard, we will not reverse that court in respect to its conclusions and inferences of fact dependent upon conflicting evidence or where there are conflicting inferences which may be reasonably drawn from evidence which is not conflicting. Rainey v. State, 245 Ala. 458, 17 So.2d 687.
[247 Ala. 262] The account was for fuel oil. The defendant filed pleas, besides the general issue, that the fuel oil was not suitable for the purposes for which it was bought, and that such purpose was known to plaintiff. It sought a set-off. Demurrer was overruled to the pleas. Thereupon plaintiff replied raising two special issues: (1) That defendant acknowledged in writing the correctness of the account of plaintiff, and that such acknowledgment is the basis of the allegation that the account is stated, and (2) that the trouble which defendant had with the fuel oil was due to his own fault in improperly mixing lubricating oil with the fuel oil. There was no demurrer to the replications, though both matters were included in the general issues and needed no special replication. As to the acknowledgment of the debt by defendant in writing, that is said in the replication to be the basis of the claim in the complaint that the account was stated. So that evidence of such acknowledgment to prove the complaint did not need a special replication, and the burden was already on plaintiff. If it was an adjustment of all unliquidated contentions between them, it was a stated account, for if those matters were not adjusted it was not a stated account and the plaintiff could not recover on such a count.
So that in respect to that replication the issue is as made on a general denial of the complaint which required proof of a stated account. Walker v. Trotter Bros., 192 Ala. 19, 68 So. 345. Section 378, Title 7, Code, has no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sparks v. State, 6 Div. 572
...of Appeals was concerned, we have gone to the record, as we are permitted to do for that purpose. Sinclair Refining Co. v. Robertson, 247 Ala. 260, 23 So.2d 872; Mutual Sav. Life Ins. Co. v. Osborne, 247 Ala. 252, 23 So.2d 867; John E. Ballenger Const. Co. v. Joe F. Walters Const. Co., 236 ......
-
Berness v. State, 8 Div. 901
...as well as charges, et cetera. Cranford v. National Surety Corporation, 231 Ala. 636, 166 So. 721; Sinclair Refining Co. v. Robertson, 247 Ala. 260, 23 So.2d 872; John E. Ballenger Const. Co. v. Joe F. Walters Const. Co., 236 Ala. 546, 184 So. We did not treat the charges referred to herein......
-
Esdale v. State, 6 Div. 557
...explain such language. In such a case we are permitted to look to the record for a proper explanation. Sinclair Refining Co. v. Robertson, 247 Ala. 260, 23 So.2d 872; John E. Ballenger Const. Co. v. Joe F. Walters Const. Co., 236 Ala. 546, 184 So. Also matters referred to in the opinion of ......
-
Owings v. Gullett
...is essentially the same as if a promissory note had been given for the balance. (Citations omitted.)' Sinclair Refining Co. v. Robertson, 247 Ala. 260, 23 So.2d 872 Mobile Rug & Shade Co. v. Daniel, 424 So.2d 1332 (Ala.Civ.App.1983). An account is rendered when it is presented to the debtor......
-
Sparks v. State, 6 Div. 572
...of Appeals was concerned, we have gone to the record, as we are permitted to do for that purpose. Sinclair Refining Co. v. Robertson, 247 Ala. 260, 23 So.2d 872; Mutual Sav. Life Ins. Co. v. Osborne, 247 Ala. 252, 23 So.2d 867; John E. Ballenger Const. Co. v. Joe F. Walters Const. Co., 236 ......
-
Berness v. State, 8 Div. 901
...as well as charges, et cetera. Cranford v. National Surety Corporation, 231 Ala. 636, 166 So. 721; Sinclair Refining Co. v. Robertson, 247 Ala. 260, 23 So.2d 872; John E. Ballenger Const. Co. v. Joe F. Walters Const. Co., 236 Ala. 546, 184 So. We did not treat the charges referred to herein......
-
Esdale v. State, 6 Div. 557
...explain such language. In such a case we are permitted to look to the record for a proper explanation. Sinclair Refining Co. v. Robertson, 247 Ala. 260, 23 So.2d 872; John E. Ballenger Const. Co. v. Joe F. Walters Const. Co., 236 Ala. 546, 184 So. Also matters referred to in the opinion of ......
-
Owings v. Gullett
...is essentially the same as if a promissory note had been given for the balance. (Citations omitted.)' Sinclair Refining Co. v. Robertson, 247 Ala. 260, 23 So.2d 872 Mobile Rug & Shade Co. v. Daniel, 424 So.2d 1332 (Ala.Civ.App.1983). An account is rendered when it is presented to the debtor......