Tuggle v. Belcher

• Citation: 139 S.E. 653
• Decision Date: 20 September 1927
• Docket Number: (No. 6028.)
• Parties: TUGGLE. v. BELCHER et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of West Virginia

139 S.E. 653

TUGGLE.

v.BELCHER et al.

(No. 6028.)

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Sept. 20, 1927.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

A notice of a motion for judgment, under section 6, c. 121, Code, need not be meticulous. It will be held sufficient if it indicates with reasonable certainty upon what obligation, demand, or account judgment is sought, and that such obligation, demand, or account is owing plaintiff by defendant.

Error not specified on a motion for a new trial, and not made the subject of a special bill of exceptions, will be treated as waived. Dransfield v. Boone-Armstrong Motor Co., 102 W. Va. 370, 135 S. E. 286.

Upon a motion to set aside a verdict as not supported by the evidence, the evidence will be considered most favorably in support of the verdict. Point 2, syl., Wilson v. Johnson, 72 W. Va. 742, 79 S. E. 734.

(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

Error to Circuit Court, Mercer County.

Action by J. C. Tuggle against J. B. Belcher and another. Judgment for plaintiff against the named defendant, and he brings error. Affirmed.

D. M. Easley and Luther G. Scott, both of Bluefield, for plaintiff in error.

George Richardson, Jr., of Bluefield, for defendant in error.

HATCHER, P. This action was instituted by a notice of motion for judgment against J. B. Belcher and A. E. Bivens. At the trial a nonsuit was taken as to Bivens, and the plaintiff recovered a judgment for $834.96 against Belcher.

The defendant contends that the trial court erred in not sustaining a demurrer and motion to quash the notice. The reasons therefor given in his brief are that the notice "did not state the quantity of lumber or the price per thousand. He did not state that defendant J. B. Belcher had contracted with him for the car of lumber or had promised to pay for it. Neither did he in any sufficient way allege that A. E. Bivens purchased the car as agent for J. B. Belcher." The notice is addressed to Belcher and Bivens jointly, and states that a motion will be made, etc., for judgment against them jointly and severally for the sum of $1,000, being the amount owing by both parties to the plaintiff for a certain carload of lumber, which was, in the language of the notice, "sold to you through A. E. Bivens by order dated March 26, 1926, and delivered to you through your agent, V. S. Belcher, by loading the said lumber in N. & W. car No. 63982, at Rocky Gap, Va., on July 24, 1926, " etc. The notice therefore bluntly acquainted the two defendants of a certain amount claimed for a certain car of lumber. The car is sufficiently identified. There was nothing uncertain about the demand the plaintiff proposed to reduce to judgment. The details of quantity and price per thousand were unnecessary. A notice of motion for judgment is not required to be meticulous. Shepherd v. Brown, 30 W. Va. 13, 3 S. E. 186.

It was also unnecessary for the notice to state that J. B. Belcher had contracted with plaintiff and had promised to pay him for the car of lumber. The notice charges a sale of the lumber to the defendants. A sale necessarily implies a contract and a promise of the purchaser to pay. "There can be no sale on the one side unless there is also a purchase on the other. The word 'sale' necessarily imports concurrence or agreement." Thornton v. Kelly, 11 R. I. 498, 500. "Sale is a word of precise legal import, both at law and in equity. It means a contract between parties to take and to pass rights of property for money, which the buyer pays or promises to pay to the seller for the thing bought and sold." Williamson v. Berry, 49 U. S. (8 How.) 495, 12 L. Ed. 1170. The agency of Bivens was an evidential fact. The sufficiency of the notice on demurrer cannot be affected by facts developed at the trial.

Certain rulings upon the evidence are named as errors. No special bill of exceptions was taken as to these rulings. There is no record that these rulings were brought to the attention of the trial court on the motion to set aside the verdict. Consequently, under the rule well established by this court, we will not now consider them. Dransfieldv. Boone-Armstrong Motor Co., 102 W. Va. 370, 135 S. E. 286.

Upon the motion to set aside the verdict it was assigned as error that the verdict was not supported by the evidence. Consequently, we will review the evidence in order to test that assignment of error. In such review, however, we will look only to the evidence favorable to the plaintiff, as the verdict of the jury was in his favor. Wilson v. Johnson, 72 W. Va. 742, 79 S. E. 734. From that evidence it appears that the plaintiff was approached...