South Central Telephone Co. v. Corr

Citation124 So. 294,220 Ala. 127
Decision Date24 October 1929
Docket Number6 Div. 417.
PartiesSOUTH CENTRAL TELEPHONE CO. v. CORR.
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lamar County; R. L. Blanton, Judge.

Action on common counts by R. C. Corr against the South Central Telephone Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Code 1923, § 7326. Affirmed.

S. T Wright, of Fayette, for appellant.

O. E Young and R. G. Redden, both of Vernon, for appellee.

SAYRE J.

Action by appellee against appellant on the common counts: (1st) On account-this count is not strictly in code form, but it is substantially the equivalent of the form prescribed for the action on open account. (2d) On stated account. (3d) Account for merchandise, goods, and chattels sold. (4th) For work and labor done. The litigation grew out of a contract for the sale by appellee to appellant of a telephone system-this on January 14, 1928. Appellee's contract originally was with Herring and Einhart, but the rights of the persons named had been assigned to appellant, and the sale to appellant was consummated on February 25, 1929, when appellant paid to appellee the agreed purchase price. However, appellee, when payment of the purchase price was made, deposited with appellant the sum of $500 to be held by the latter as a guaranty that appellee had not at the time of the consummated sale collected current telephone rentals and charges for service in advance of the customary due date. The suit was to recover this $500 and an additional sum for services rendered in operating the telephone system from the date of the executory contract to the date of the completed sale, viz from January 14 to February 25-this in agreement, as alleged, with appellee's undertaking to operate the system between the dates mentioned "in the usual and ordinary was and to keep and maintain the same in the usual and ordinary condition, at his own cost and expense" and "seller shall pay to purchaser the net earnings of said property from and after the date hereof [the date of the original contract] to the date of consummation of this purchase." The defense, offered under the general issue "with leave to offer evidence of any facts that would constitute a valid defense if specially pleaded including set-off and recoupment," was that appellee had not paid over to appellant the net earnings for the period stipulated, and during that period had collected and retained rentals and charges in advance of the customary due date and had not turned over a connecting line operated by appellee from Caledonia, Miss., to Columbus in that state.

Appellant requested in writing the general affirmative charge. The evidence upon the case as a whole was in conflict, and this charge was properly refused. Appellant advances two considerations upon which this charge should have been given That appellee had, at the time of the consummated sale, collected several hundred dollars from rural lines for the entire year 1928, and that appellant had failed to turn over the Caledonia-Columbus line worth a thousand or two. As for the first named consideration, appellant's contention rests upon the proposition that appellee had collected tolls from rural lines in advance of the customary due date. Appellee's testimony was that the tolls on rural lines were due at the beginning of the year. Appellant offered to show that the general custom was to collect from rural lines quarterly; but the witness had no acquaintance with the custom of the telephone business in immediate question, and hence his testimony on this point was not admitted, and properly so for the reason that we think the "customary due date" of the contract meant "according to the custom of the telephone business the sale of which was being negotiated." As for the other consideration: We do not construe the contract between the parties to have embraced the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Dollar v. McKinney
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • May 29, 1958
    ...R. Co. v. Alsobrook, 223 Ala. 540, 137 So. 437; Morgan-Hill Paving Co. v. Thomas, 223 Ala. 88, 134 So. 480; South Central Tel. Co. v. Corr, 220 Ala. 127, 124 So. 294; May v. Draper, 214 Ala. 324, 107 So. 862; Roach v. Wright, 195 Ala. 333, 70 So. 271; Kress v. Lawrence, 158 Ala. 652, 47 So.......
  • Crocker v. Lee
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • August 30, 1954
    ...Express Agency v. Burns, 255 Ala. 557, 52 So.2d 177; Morgan-Hill Paving Co. v. Thomas, 223 Ala. 88, 134 So. 480; South Central Telephone Co. v. Corr, 220 Ala. 127, 124 So. 294; Wear v. Wear, 200 Ala. 345, 76 So. 111; Roach v. Wright, 195 Ala. 333, 70 So. 271; Central Foundry Co. v. Laird, 1......
  • General Finance Corp. v. Bradwell
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • March 17, 1966
    ...R. Co. v. Alsobrook, 223 Ala. 540, 137 So. 437; Morgan-Hill Paving Co. v. Thomas, 223 Ala. 88, 134 So. 480; South Central Tel. Co. v. Corr. 220 Ala. 127, 124 So. 294; May v. Draper, 214 Ala. 324, 107 So. 862; Roach v. Wright, 195 Ala. 333, 70 So. 271; Kress v. Lawrence, 158 Ala. 652, 47 So.......
  • Allen v. Friedman
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 13, 1930
    ... ... State, 149 Miss. 262; Holmes v ... State, 151 Miss. 702; South Central Telephone Co. v ... Corr, 124 So. 294; Fairley v. State, 152 ... ...
  • 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