V.J. Forrester & Bro. v. J.A. May Co.

• Decision Date: 19 December 1911
• Citation: 3 Ala.App. 281,57 So. 64
• Parties: V. J. FORRESTER & BRO. v. J. A. MAY CO.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

57 So. 64

3 Ala.App. 281

V. J. FORRESTER & BRO. v. J. A. MAY CO.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

December 19, 1911

Appeal from Circuit Court, Houston County; H. A. Pearce, Judge.

Action by V. J. Forrester & Bro., for the use of Grimsley Bros against the J. A. May Company. From a judgment for defendant plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

B. F. Reid, for appellant.

Pace &amp Lee, for appellee.

WALKER P.J.

The property alleged to have been converted had belonged to V. J. Forrester & Bro., who made a conditional sale of it to Shinholster Bros.; the contract of sale providing that no title to the property should pass to the purchasers until they had fully performed the terms of the contract. The claim of the plaintiffs (appellants here) to the property rests upon an alleged sale by Forrester & Bro. of their interest in the property, after the death of a member of the firm of Shinholster Bros. and the failure in business of that firm; while the contention of the appellee is that, before that alleged sale was made, it had already purchased from Forrester & Bro. their interest in the property. The case turns upon the inquiry whether what occurred between W. H. Forrester, a member of the firm of Forrester & Bro., and J. A. May, representing the appellee, on the occasion of an interview between them at Shinholster Bros.' mill, amounted to a sale to the appellee by Forrester & Bro. of their interest in the property. [ 1] According to the testimony of W. H. Forrester, examined as a witness for the plaintiffs, he offered to sell the property for cash, but when May said that he did not have the money there the witness "then told him it was all off then." On the other hand, the testimony offered by the defendant tended to show that a sale was then consummated; the price being agreed upon and the property delivered, under an agreement that the price would be paid on the return of May to town. Plainly there was no merit in the objections made to questions asked the witness Forrester, on his cross-examination, as to the details of the conversation between him and May, in reference to which the witness had testified.

The questions asked the same witness on his cross-examination, in reference to the plaintiffs paying him more for the property than the defendant claimed to have agreed to pay for it, were not subject to the objections interposed to them, as they had a tendency to disclose a motive or interest on the part of the witness to claim that a sale of the property to the defendant had not been made.

Without regard to the propriety of that ruling, it is apparent that the plaintiffs were not harmed by the action of the court in sustaining an objection to a question to the same witness in reference to what was said, and to the witness objecting to the moving of the property when he saw it in the possession of agents of the defendant during the night following the day of the interview between the witness and May, as the witness afterwards was permitted to detail what was said on the occasion inquired about.

As to the rulings on the objections to two questions asked the plaintiffs' witness A. M. Grimsley on his cross-examination, it is enough to say that...