Trammell v. Chambers County
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | COLEMAN, J. |
| Citation | 9 So. 815,93 Ala. 388 |
| Parties | TRAMMELL ET AL. v. CHAMBERS COUNTY. |
| Decision Date | 25 June 1891 |
9 So. 815
93 Ala. 388
TRAMMELL ET AL.
v.
CHAMBERS COUNTY.
Supreme Court of Alabama
June 25, 1891
Appeal from circuit, Chambers county; E. M. OLIVER, Judge.
Action for breach of contract by Chambers county against R. J. Trammell and others. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. Affirmed.
J. M. Chilton and N. D. Denson, for appellants.
W. J. Samford, for appellee.
COLEMAN, J.
This case comes up on the record to have reviewed certain rulings of the trial court upon the demurrer of defendants to the complaint, and the demurrer of plaintiff to special pleas of the defendants. There are about 30 assignments of error, but they are easily classified. The suit was brought by Chambers county to recover damages for the breach of a written contract made with the defendants for the hire of county convicts of Chambers county. The contract was made on the 26th day of December, 1885, was to take effect on the 1st day of January, 1886, and terminate on the 1st day of January, 1889.
The first ground of demurrer is that the complaint fails to aver that plaintiff is a corporation. This court has judicial knowledge of the corporate character and names of the counties of the state. Overton v. State, 60 Ala. 73; Code, § 886; Camp v. Marion Co., (Ala.) 8 South. Rep. 786.
The second class are those which where directed against the failure of the complaint to state the names of the different convicts, the date of conviction, term and expiration of sentence, and for what county they were sentenced. It is enough to say, without considering each ground of demurrer under this head, that the fifth count of the complaint was so amended as to cure all defects, if there were any, and which is not decided, raised, or suggested by the demurrer to this count.
The third class are those which assert the proposition that the complaint must aver, not only a breach, but further show wherein and how damage resulted to plaintiff from a breach of the contract. Every breach assigned is based upon some covenant contained in the written contract. Whenever there is an unwarranted breach of contract, some damages are recoverable, at least nominal damages; and it is well settled, if anything is recoverable, the [9 So. 816.] way to test the extent of the recovery is not by demurrer. The amount of the recovery is controlled and restricted by the exclusion of improper evidence, and by charges to the jury. Daughtery v. Telegraph Co., 75 Ala. 171. The rule declared...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Woodard, 6 Div. 545.
...Co. v. City of Mobile, 201 Ala. 607, 79 So. 39, L. R. A. 1918F, 667; Robertson v. Hayes, 83 Ala. 290, 3 So. 670; Trammel v. Chambers Co., 93 Ala. 388, 9 So. 815; Weller v. City of Gadsden, 141 Ala. 642, 37 So. 682, 3 Ann. Cas. 981; Gadsden v. Mitchell, 145 Ala. 137, 40 So. 557, 6 L. R. A. (......
-
Mobile Electric Co. v. City of Mobile, 1 Div. 38
...be separated from the valid period and declared unenforceable. Robertson v. Hayes, 83 Ala. 290, 3 So. 674; Trammell v. Chambers County, 93 Ala. 388, 9 So. 815; Weller v. City of Gadsden, 141 Ala. 642, 37 So. 682, 3 Ann.Cas. 981. In the Robertson Case, supra, the court dealt with a lease for......
-
Gabbert v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company
...in the Constitution, does not make it more than one amendment. Mr. Justice Breaux, in his dissenting opinion in State ex rel. v. Mason, 9 So. 815, said: "I do not commit myself to the averment that different amendments and changes can not be made by one amendment, when they [171 Mo. 102] ar......
-
Fitzgerald v. Walker
...been that they should not be valid for a longer period, they would be void only as to the excess." The case of Trammell v. Chambers County, 9 So. 815, was an action by the county for the breach of a contract by which the defendant hired certain convict labor from the 1st day of January, 188......
-
Miller v. Woodard, 6 Div. 545.
...Co. v. City of Mobile, 201 Ala. 607, 79 So. 39, L. R. A. 1918F, 667; Robertson v. Hayes, 83 Ala. 290, 3 So. 670; Trammel v. Chambers Co., 93 Ala. 388, 9 So. 815; Weller v. City of Gadsden, 141 Ala. 642, 37 So. 682, 3 Ann. Cas. 981; Gadsden v. Mitchell, 145 Ala. 137, 40 So. 557, 6 L. R. A. (......
-
Mobile Electric Co. v. City of Mobile, 1 Div. 38
...be separated from the valid period and declared unenforceable. Robertson v. Hayes, 83 Ala. 290, 3 So. 674; Trammell v. Chambers County, 93 Ala. 388, 9 So. 815; Weller v. City of Gadsden, 141 Ala. 642, 37 So. 682, 3 Ann.Cas. 981. In the Robertson Case, supra, the court dealt with a lease for......
-
Gabbert v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company
...in the Constitution, does not make it more than one amendment. Mr. Justice Breaux, in his dissenting opinion in State ex rel. v. Mason, 9 So. 815, said: "I do not commit myself to the averment that different amendments and changes can not be made by one amendment, when they [171 Mo. 102] ar......
-
Fitzgerald v. Walker
...been that they should not be valid for a longer period, they would be void only as to the excess." The case of Trammell v. Chambers County, 9 So. 815, was an action by the county for the breach of a contract by which the defendant hired certain convict labor from the 1st day of January, 188......