Tennessee Valley Bank v. Valley View Farm

• Decision Date: 09 June 1923
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 522.
• Citation: 97 So. 62,210 Ala. 123
• Parties: TENNESSEE VALLEY BANK v. VALLEY VIEW FARM ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

97 So. 62

210 Ala. 123

TENNESSEE VALLEY BANK v. VALLEY VIEW FARM ET AL.

8 Div. 522.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 9, 1923

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; W. W. Haralson, Judge.

Suit on promissory note by the Tennessee Valley Bank against the Valley View Farm, W. E. Lester, and B. H. Lester. From a judgment for plaintiff against defendants Valley View Farm and W. E. Lester, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Proctor & Snodgrass, of Scottsboro, and S. A. Lynne, of Decatur, for appellant.

R. E Smith and R. C. Brickell, both of Huntsville, for appellees.

THOMAS J.

The suit is upon a promissory note executed by the Valley View Farm and W. E. Lester. The defendants are "W. E. Lester and B. H. Lester, individually, and Valley View Farm, a partnership composed of W. E. Lester and B. H. Lester." Defendants respectively pleaded the general issue and "in short by consent with leave to give in evidence any matter or thing which would be material if specially pleaded." Defendant B. H. Lester further answered saying that "the note upon which this suit is founded was not executed by her or by any one authorized to bind her in the premises," and makes oath that this plea is true. The last plea and the rejoinders to plaintiff's replication were embraced in, or may be given under, the agreement for pleading "in short by consent." Allen v. Standard Ins. Co., 198 Ala. 522, 73 So 897.

The trial resulted in verdict and judgment against Valley View Farm and W. E. Lester; there was judgment for defendant Mrs. B. H. Lester, and it is from this judgment in favor of Mrs. Lester that the appeal is prosecuted. There was a motion for a new trial which was denied, and exception was duly reserved by the plaintiff.

The refusal of the general affirmative charge as to Mrs. B. H. Lester is justified by the conflict in evidence and the reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom. McMillan v. Aiken, 205 Ala. 35, 88 So. 135.

Assignments of error 1 and 2 relate to the introduction in evidence, over the objection of plaintiff, of letters written by the branch manager of plaintiff to Judge W. E. Lester, after the due date of the note. The note was of date February 12, 1921, for $6,000, due December 1st of the same year. After the latter date, A. B. Staten, the manager of the payee's branch taking and holding the note for collection or extension, wrote that he was "inclosing *** herewith a new note of $6,000 for a period of 60 days," requested that it be signed "as Valley View Farm," and that Mrs. Lester sign next "with your name following." The plaintiff moved to exclude the letter on the grounds that it was not binding on the plaintiff, was subsequent to the maturity of the note sued on, and could not affect the status that existed at the time of the execution of the note. This motion was overruled and exception reserved. The letter stated that it was written "at the suggestion of Mr. White," who is shown to have been the cashier of the Tennessee Valley Bank at Decatur, which governs all the branches of said bank, including that of which the writer, Staten, was the manager. The same objection, exception, and motion to exclude were made and reserved to the introduction in evidence of a letter of date February 27th to Judge Lester, asking that the note be signed as outlined in the letter of the 20th and returned promptly. In argument it is insisted that the letters were not pertinent or competent as evidence n the issue of the indebtedness vel non of Mrs. Lester, and shed no light on the status "at the time of the execution of the note," citing Humes v. O'Bryan, 74 Ala. 64; M. & C. R. Co. v. Womack, 84 Ala. 149, 4 So. 618; Fowler v. Pritchard, 148 Ala. 261, 41 So. 667.

The Humes Case, supra, was an action on account for goods sold and delivered, and it was held that the declarations of one person as to the existence of a partnership between himself and another person are not admissible evidence against the latter to prove the fact of partnership unless they are made in his presence, or fall within some recognized exception to the general rule excluding hearsay evidence; that the declarations of one partner, while in possession and carrying on the business, explanatory of possession, whether against interest or not, are within the rule, and admissible in corroboration of other and independent evidence of the alleged partnership; and that it was under the foregoing principles that the letter signed by Glover of later date was...