Trammell v. Ramage

• Decision Date: 14 December 1892
• Citation: 11 So. 916,97 Ala. 666
• Parties: TRAMMELL ET AL. v. RAMAGE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

11 So. 916

97 Ala. 666

TRAMMELL ET AL. v. RAMAGE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 14, 1892

Appeal from circuit court, Chambers county; JAMES R. DOWDELL, Judge.

Action by James B. Ramage against W. O. Trammell and others for wrongful attachment. From a judgment for plaintiff defendants appeal. Reversed.

The plaintiff offered in evidence an affidavit, bond, and writ in an attachment suit begun by W. O. Trammell against the plaintiff in this suit, James B. Ramage, for $163. The said affidavit was made by W. O. Trammell, averring that said James B. Ramage was about to "fraudulently dispose of his property." The testimony tended to show that the clerk of the court had delivered the writ of attachment to the sheriff, and he executed it by levying it on the tract of land belonging to said Ramage. The testimony for the plaintiff in the present suit tends to admit his indebtedness to Trammell in the attachment suit, but denies that he was about to fraudulently dispose of his property. The plaintiff's evidence further tended to show that he did not employ an attorney to defend the attachment suit, and judgment by default was taken against him; but that, after the said judgment by default was rendered, he employed an attorney to make a motion for a new trial, and paid him $15. The defendants objected, on the ground that, under the facts shown, the attorney's fee could not be recovered in this suit. The court overruled the objection and motion. The plaintiff's attorney asked him, "Were you about fraudulently to dispose of your property?" The defendants objected to this question, on the ground that it called for illegal, incompetent evidence. The plaintiff answered, "No; I was not." The plaintiff was then asked the following question: "Had you done anything towards fraudulently disposing of your property?" to which he answered, "I had not." The defendants objected to the question, on the ground that it called for illegal and incompetent evidence. The plaintiff, as a witness, was then asked the following question: "What effect did the levy of said attachment have on your credit?" and answered, "It damaged my credit to the amount of $150." The defendants separately objected to this question on the ground that it was illegal and incompetent evidence. The testimony for the plaintiff tended to show that some time in December, 1890, before the attachment was issued, Trammell's attorney approached him about the account due Trammell, (the same on which the attachment was based;) that, in several interviews about the matter, he, (the plaintiff,) told the attorney that the loan company then had a mortgage on his land for $726, which was about due; that thereupon the said attorney offered to lend him enough money on a mortgage on said land, at the rate of 10 per cent., to pay the loan company's mortgage, and to pay Trammell's debt, the whole of the money loaned to be repaid in 12 months; that the plaintiff then told the attorney that he did not see how he could pay back the money in 12 months, but that, if he could not do any better, he would borrow the money from him; that afterwards he saw one Hood, who offered to negotiate the loan for him at the rate of 10 per cent. interest, to be paid in five years; that he accepted this proposition of said Hood, and afterwards told Trammell's attorney that he would not borrow the money of him, as he could do better, and that thereupon the affidavit was made, and the attachment writ sued out and levied upon the said lands. The defendants introduced E. M. Oliver as a witness, who testified that he saw the plaintiff several times about Trammell's account, and that finally the plaintiff agreed to borrow enough money of him to pay the loan company's mortgage and Trammell's account, and to give him a mortgage for the whole amount, due in 12 months, at 8 per cent. interest; that nothing was said by plaintiff about accepting this proposition if he could not do better, but that he told the witness to...