Tabler v. Sheffield Land, Iron & Coal Co.
| Decision Date | 10 May 1889 |
| Citation | 6 So. 196,87 Ala. 305 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Parties | TABLER ET AL. v. SHEFFIELD LAND, IRON & COAL CO. |
Appeal from circuit court, Colbert county; H. C. SPEAKE, Judge.
Suit by Tabler and others to recover from the Sheffield Land, Iron & Coal Company money expended by them in the purchase of certain "labor tickets" issued by the defendant to its employés, which were purchased by plaintiff under an alleged special agreement with defendant that it would take them up from plaintiffs for their face value. On the evidence, as shown, the court below charged the jury, at the request of defendant, that, "if they believe the evidence, they will find for the defendant." Plaintiffs excepted to this charge, and assign the ruling of the court on the evidence, as shown by the opinion, and the giving of this charge, as error.
J B. Moore and James Jackson, for appellants.
This is the second time the present case has been before this court on appeal. When here before, the appeal was prosecuted from the rulings of the lower court upon the pleadings, and this court held that the plaintiffs, who are appellants in both appeals, could not maintain their action as transferees of the "labor tickets." Tabler v Coal Co., 79 Ala. 377. Upon remandment of the cause, the special counts of the complaint, in which plaintiffs claimed a recovery as transferees of the "labor tickets," were abandoned, and issue was joined on the common counts. The right of the plaintiffs to recover in this action can be maintained only upon the theory that they took up the "labor tickets," the basis of the suit, at the instance or request of the defendant corporation, acting through some lawfully authorized agent or agents; or, if upon agreement with some officer or agent not duly authorized to bind the company thereby, that the defendant corporation subsequently ratified the agreement. Stanley v. Coal Co., 83 Ala. 260, 4 South. Rep. 34.
There was much testimony introduced by the plaintiffs tending to show that they became the purchasers of the said "labor tickets"-giving in exchange therefor "supplies, and medicines, or money"-under a special arrangement and agreement with the president, who was also general manager, and with a special agent of the defendant, that the corporation would take up the said "labor tickets" for their face value upon presentation by the plaintiffs. There was also evidence on the part of the plaintiffs tending to show that upon presentation of a number of such tickets the defendant paid the plaintiffs the full amount represented by them. There was no conflict in this evidence. One witness for plaintiff, however, testified that "on the day he made such payment to plaintiffs he told one I. T. Cooper, a book-keeper and clerk of plaintiffs, that no more of said tickets would be paid by defendant except to the laborers themselves;" while Duncan, one of the plaintiffs, testified that on the day of the payment he was present, and "heard no such conversation" as that testified to by the witness. This constitutes a conflict in the testimony, which will not authorize the general charge. To support the general charge the evidence must be so clear and convincing as that the court could rightly sustain a demurrer to the evidence of the opposite party. If the evidence be in conflict, or if it be circumstantial, or if a material fact in the case rests in inference, the general charge should not be given. The circuit court erred in giving the charge requested by the defendant. Insurance Co. v. Insurance Co., 81 Ala. 329, 1 South. Rep. 561; Seals v. Edmondson, 73 Ala. 295; Railroad Co. v. Small, 70 Ala. 499; Smoot v. Railway Co., 67 Ala. 13.
There was no error in the court excluding that part of the testimony of the witness Duncan relating to an alleged conversation had between him and one Walter Gordon, who was at the time president and general manager of the defendant corporation, but was shown to be deceased when the trial was had. It was evidence of one interested in the result...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watts v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
... ... 658, 69 So. 102; Amerson v. Corona Coal & Iron Co., ... 194 Ala. 175, 69 So. 601; Lawson v. Mobile ... 453; Smoot ... v. M. & M. Ry. Co., 67 Ala. 17; Tabler, Crudup & Co ... v. Sheffield L., I. & C. Co., 87 Ala ... ...
-
Corley v. Vizard
... ... was entitled both to the possession of the land and the ... rent." In the earlier cases of Moody v ... 82 Ala. 311, 8 So. 231; Stanley v. Sheffield, etc., ... Co., 83 Ala. 260, 4 So. 34; Tabler, Crudup & ... ...
-
Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Maddox
...not be given "when the evidence is conflicting, or circumstantial, or when a material fact rests wholly in inference." Tabler v. Sheffield Co., 87 Ala. 309, 6 So. 196; Tobler v. Pioneer M. & M. Co., 166 Ala. 482, 518, So. 86; N. C. & St. L. Rwy. Co. v. Crosby, 194 Ala. 342, 70 So. 7; Warren......
-
Homewood Dairy Products Co. v. Robinson
...So.2d 733; Benson & Co. v. Foreman, 241 Ala. 193, 1 So.2d 898; Alford v. Darnell, 252 Ala. 565, 42 So.2d 260; Tabler v. Sheffield Land, Iron & Coal Co., 87 Ala. 305, 6 So. 196. But there is no controversy in respect to that feature of the transaction. No one claims that the company was not ......