Tanner & Delaney Engine Co. v. Hall
| Decision Date | 01 March 1889 |
| Parties | TANNER & DELANEY ENGINE CO. v. HALL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Geneva county; J. M. CARMICHAEL, Judge.
This was an action brought by the appellant against the defendant as one of the firm of Hall & Mobley, and was based on several promissory notes, made to the plaintiff by and signed in the firm name of Hall & Mobley. The evidence for the defendant tended to show that there was no partnership existing between the defendant, Hall, and said Mobley. To prove the existence of said partnership, and for the further purpose of showing notice to the defendant that the business was carried on in the firm name of Hall & Mobley, the plaintiff undertook to prove by the deposition of one Butler that "it was understood and common knowledge in and around Chipley, Fla that Hall was a partner of the firm of Hall & Mobley, in the saw-mill business." On motion by the defendant that this evidence be excluded from the jury, the court excluded the evidence, and the plaintiff thereupon excepted. The notes which were the basis of this action, were given for the purchase of an engine sold by the plaintiff. The defendant testified as a witness for himself that the said Butler "took the engine, sold defendant by plaintiff, back representing himself that he was the agent of plaintiff, and that said Butler sold said engine for one thousand dollars." The plaintiff moved to exclude said evidence of the defendant from the consideration of the jury, on the ground that "the fact of Butler's agency could not be established in that manner." The court overruled the motion, allowed the evidence to go to the jury, and the plaintiff excepted. The plaintiff then proposed to prove by said Hall that "before said Butler took said engine back it had been sold under attachment proceedings in the state of Florida, and that at said sale plaintiff became the purchaser for $400, and afterwards made sale of the engine for $1,000, and that this was the manner in which said Butler took said engine back." The court refused to allow such proof to be made, on the ground that none but oral evidence was offered to prove the attachment proceedings. To this ruling by the court the plaintiff duly excepted. The suit was brought for $1,000. There was verdict and judgment for $500, and the plaintiff now prosecutes this appeal, and assigns the several rulings of the court on the evidence as error.
M. E. Milligan, for appellant.
1. It was not competent to prove the existence of a partnership between the defendant, Hall, and Mobley by general reputation or common rumor. Carter v. Douglass, 2 Ala. 499; Humes v. O'Bryan, 74 Ala. 64. The court, under this principle, properly excluded the...
To continue reading
Request your trial