Vest v. Night Commander Lighting Co., 8 Div. 359.

• Decision Date: 21 January 1932
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 359.
• Citation: Vest v. Night Commander Lighting Co., 224 Ala. 213, 139 So. 297 (Ala. 1932)
• Parties: VEST v. NIGHT COMMANDER LIGHTING CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

139 So. 297

224 Ala. 213

VEST v. NIGHT COMMANDER LIGHTING CO.

8 Div. 359.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 21, 1932

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

Petition of Addie Vest for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in Vest v. Night Commander Lighting Co.,139 So. 295.

Writ denied.

Lynne &amp Lynne, of Decatur, for petitioner.

Melvin Hutson, of Decatur, for respondent.

BROWN J.

In support of his application for the writ of certiorari to review the opinion of the Court of Appeals, the petitioner urges three propositions.

The first is that the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant, culminating in the execution of the note sued on involved doing business by the plaintiff, a foreign corporation, without qualifying to do business in Alabama and the note is void as against public policy.The predicate for this contention is that the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant obligated the plaintiff to not only furnish the light generator and its equipment necessary to installation, but was to install the plant in the defendant's residence.

The fault in this contention, in so far as it affects the petitioner's right of review, is that the Court of Appeals has found as of fact that the contract for the sale of the generator and its equipment, and the contract for its installation, were two separate and distinct transactions and between different parties, the first between the plaintiff and the defendant for the sale of the generator and its equipment to defendant and its delivery to the railroad company f. o. b. Jackson, Mich., and the contract for the installation was between one Treadwell and defendant; and therefore the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant was a transaction of interstate commerce, in no way affected by the public policy of this state.

Under the repeated rulings here, this involved a finding of fact by the Court of Appeals, and the application of the law to such fact is not reviewable by certiorari.Postal Tel.-Cable Co. v. Minderhout,195 Ala. 420, 71 So. 91.

The second point urged is that the trial court erred in adverse rulings to petitioner in the admission of evidence.The only question treated by the opinion of the Court of Appeals in this respect is stated by the court as follows "Appellant insists that the court committed error in sustaining plaintiff's objection to the question: 'Now when this plant, outfit, was delivered there, the pipe they sent you, did the plaintiff cut that and fit it in the ground to your house and in your house?'*** As to whether it was done by plaintiff was a question of fact and the question called for a...