Sorrell v. Scheuer, 4 Div. 57.

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtTHOMAS, J.
Citation209 Ala. 268,96 So. 216
PartiesSORRELL v. SCHEUER.
Docket Number4 Div. 57.
Decision Date19 April 1923

96 So. 216

209 Ala. 268

SORRELL
v.
SCHEUER.

4 Div. 57.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 19, 1923


Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; Arthur B. Foster, Judge.

Action on account by Harry Scheuer against J. F. Sorrell, doing business as J. A. Sessions & Co., and individually. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Acts 1911, p. 449, § 6. Affirmed. [96 So. 217]

John H. Wilkerson, of Troy, for appellant.

C. C. Brannen, of Troy, for appellee.

THOMAS, J.

The questions for review arose on the introduction or rejection of evidence in the court below in the suit of Harry Scheuer against J. F. Sorrell, doing business under the firm name of J. A. Sessions & Co. and J. F. Sorrell, as a member of that firm. Defendant Sorrell answered the complaint, saying that he was not and had not been doing business under said firm name, etc., and that he was not a member of any such partnership as that indicated. To this answer plaintiff replied that defendant is estopped from setting up that he is not a member of said firm, and not bound for the debts thereof, in that he had held himself out and represented to the trade that he had such partnership, and plaintiff, relying upon such representation, extended credit to the firm and sold the goods for which the suit is brought. There was a jury and verdict for the plaintiff.

As a general rule, facts are deemed relevant which logically tend to prove or disprove the fact in issue, or which afford a reasonable inference or shed light upon the matter contested; and facts bearing so remotely upon or collaterally to the issue that they afford merely a conjectural inference concerning the facts in issue should not be admitted in evidence. 1 Greenleaf on Evidence (15th Ed.) §§ 52, 448; First Nat. Bank v. Stewart, 114 U.S. 224, 5 S.Ct. 845, 29 L.Ed. 101; Steen v. Swadley, 126 Ala. 616, 28 So. 620; Langworthy v. Goodall, McLester & Co., 76 Ala. 325; Brewer v. Watson, 65 Ala. 88, 97; Sims v. Glazener, 14 Ala. 695, 48 Am. Dec. 120; Smith v. Causey, 28 Ala. 655, 65 Am. Dec. 372; Olds v. Powell, 7 Ala. 652, 655, 656, 42 Am. Dec. 605.

Whether evidence offered is too remote to be admissible is for the court, in the exercise of a sound discretion, and such ruling will not be revised on appeal unless it is plain that error was committed. 10 R. C. L. § 87, p. 926. However, where the competency of evidence is doubtful, the better practice is to allow the evidence to go to the jury, leaving them to determine its weight and credibility. Shannon v. Kinney, 1 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 3, 10 Am. Dec. 706. That is to say, if the evidence tends to prove a fact for determination by the jury, however slight the evidence may be, it is relevant, A. G. S. R. Co. v. Hill, 93 Ala. 514, 9 So. 722, 30 Am. St. Rep. 65; Rodgers v. Ricketts, 204 Ala. 184, 85 So. 486.

On cross-examination of a witness any fact may be elicited that tends to show bias, interest, or partiality, or that tends to impeach [96 So. 218] or illustrate the accuracy of the witness' statements or memory. Stone v. State, 208 Ala. 50, 93 So. 706; Johnson v. State, 199 Ala. 255, 74 So. 366; Tapscott v. State, 18 Ala. App. 67, 88 So. 376.

Greater latitude is permissible on cross-examination than on the direct examination of the witness, such as, in the sound discretion of the trial court, is necessary and tends to show bias, interest, partiality, sincerity, memory, accuracy, or credibility. An error in allowing a too great latitude must be clearly prejudicial to justify a reversal on appeal. Patton v. State, 197 Ala. 180, 72 So. 401; Johnson v. State, supra; Carson v. State, 128 Ala. 58, 29 So. 608; Marler v. State, 68 Ala. 580; Cox v. State, 162 Ala. 66, 50 So. 398; Ingram v. State, 67 Ala. 67; Lowman v. State, 161 Ala. 47, 50 So. 43; Stahmer v. State, 125 Ala. 72, 27 So. 311; Underhill on Criminal Evidence, § 222.

Business association, employment, or indebtedness between witness and the party at interest may be shown on cross-examination in a proper case as tending to show bias, interest, or prejudice. Johnson v. State, supra; Prince v. State, 100 Ala....

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 practice notes
  • Yuncke v. Welker, (No. 9730)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 4 Diciembre 1945
    ...for the trial court to determine in the exercise of a sound discretion. Evidence, 20 Am. Jur. 243; 10 R. C. L. 926; Sorrell v. Scheuer, 209 Ala. 268, 96 So. 216; Raymond v. Flint, 225 Mass. 521, 114 N. E. 811. It does not appear that the admission of this evidence amounted to an abuse of di......
  • Yuncke v. Welker, No. 9730.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 4 Diciembre 1945
    ...for the trial court to determine in the exercise of a sound discretion. Evidence, 20 Am.Jur. 243; 10 R.C.L. 926; Sorrell v. Scheuer, 209 Ala. 268, 96 So. 216; Raymond v. Flint, 225 Mass. 521, 114 N.E. 811. It does not appear that the admission of this evidence amounted to an abuse of discre......
  • McGowan v. State, CR-95-1775.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 8 Julio 2005
    ...tends to prove a fact for determination by the jury, however slight the evidence may be, it is relevant.' "`"Sorrell v. Scheuer, 209 Ala. 268, 269, 96 So. 216, 217 (1923). (Citations omitted.) 990 So.2d 959 "`"See also Pitts v. State, 261 Ala. 314, 316, 74 So.2d 232 (195......
  • McGowan v. State, No. CR-95-1775 (Ala. Crim. App. 12/12/2003), No. CR-95-1775.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 12 Diciembre 2003
    ...tends to prove a fact for determination by the jury, however slight the evidence may be, it is relevant.' "`"Sorrell v. Scheuer, 209 Ala. 268, 269, 96 So. 216, 217 (1923). (Citations omitted.) "`"See also Pitts v. State, 261 Ala. 314, 316, 74 So. 2d 232 (1954)." &qu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
42 cases
  • Yuncke v. Welker, (No. 9730)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 4 Diciembre 1945
    ...for the trial court to determine in the exercise of a sound discretion. Evidence, 20 Am. Jur. 243; 10 R. C. L. 926; Sorrell v. Scheuer, 209 Ala. 268, 96 So. 216; Raymond v. Flint, 225 Mass. 521, 114 N. E. 811. It does not appear that the admission of this evidence amounted to an abuse of di......
  • Yuncke v. Welker, No. 9730.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 4 Diciembre 1945
    ...for the trial court to determine in the exercise of a sound discretion. Evidence, 20 Am.Jur. 243; 10 R.C.L. 926; Sorrell v. Scheuer, 209 Ala. 268, 96 So. 216; Raymond v. Flint, 225 Mass. 521, 114 N.E. 811. It does not appear that the admission of this evidence amounted to an abuse of discre......
  • McGowan v. State, CR-95-1775.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 8 Julio 2005
    ...tends to prove a fact for determination by the jury, however slight the evidence may be, it is relevant.' "`"Sorrell v. Scheuer, 209 Ala. 268, 269, 96 So. 216, 217 (1923). (Citations omitted.) 990 So.2d 959 "`"See also Pitts v. State, 261 Ala. 314, 316, 74 So.2d 232 (195......
  • McGowan v. State, No. CR-95-1775 (Ala. Crim. App. 12/12/2003), No. CR-95-1775.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 12 Diciembre 2003
    ...tends to prove a fact for determination by the jury, however slight the evidence may be, it is relevant.' "`"Sorrell v. Scheuer, 209 Ala. 268, 269, 96 So. 216, 217 (1923). (Citations omitted.) "`"See also Pitts v. State, 261 Ala. 314, 316, 74 So. 2d 232 (1954)." &qu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT