Wallace v. Crosthwait
| Decision Date | 20 April 1916 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 910 |
| Citation | 71 So. 666,196 Ala. 356 |
| Parties | WALLACE v. CROSTHWAIT. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lawrence County; A.H. Alston, Judge.
Action by A.J. Crosthwait against W.C. Wallace. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Transferred from the Court of Appeals under section 6, Act April 18, 1911, p. 449. Reversed and rendered.
W.T Lowe, of New Decatur, for appellant.
J.M Irwin, of Moulton, for appellee.
The suit was by plaintiff, appellee here, for the recovery of the purchase price of a bale of cotton sold to him by defendant. The gravamen of count 3 was that said bale of cotton was "water-packed," that this fact was unknown to plaintiff buyer at the time of the purchase, and that on account of such condition plaintiff suffered the damages. The cause was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury. The special finding of fact was "that the bale of cotton in controversy was water-packed," and judgment was entered for plaintiff.
In the trial of a cause without a jury either party may by bill of exceptions present for review by this court the judgment of the trial court on the evidence, without an exception thereto; and this court will review such finding. If there is error, such judgment will be here rendered as the court below should have rendered, or the cause may be reversed and remanded for further proceedings in the lower court.
The warranty on sale of a bale of cotton by the planter is thus declared by statute (Code 1907, § 3734):
"When cotton in bales is sent by a planter or other owner to a factor for sale, a warranty is implied on the part of such planter or owner to the factor, and the purchaser from such factor, respectively, that such cotton is not fraudulently packed; and when cotton is sold by sample by the owner or his factor, that the sample has been fairly drawn and that the cotton is not fraudulently packed, and no other warranty is thereby implied; and for any breach of such implied warranty, the purchaser may recover damages, either from the owner or factor selling the same; but no action can be brought for any breach of such last mentioned implied warranty, unless the suit is commenced within one year after such sale; but planters shall not be liable, in any way, for losses sustained by factors or commission merchants for having sold cotton by fraudulent or unfair samples, unless such loss was occasioned by plating of fraudulent packing of the cotton by such planter."
The law does not presume fraud, and, when a charge of fraud is made as a fact, and it is denied, it must be established by the evidence before relief can be had. If the facts and circumstances from which the alleged fraud is supposed to arise may be reasonably consistent with honest intentions fraud will not be imputed. Thames v. Rembert, 63 Ala. 561; Harrell v. Mitchell, 61 Ala. 270, 281; Allen v. Riddle, 141 Ala. 621, 37 So. 680; Morris & Co. v. Barton & Allen, 180 Ala. 98, 60 So. 172; Henderson v. Gilliland, 187 Ala. 268, 65 So. 793.
Cotton is one of the chief products of agriculture in this state, and from its preparation for market and sale have come the expressions "plated," "sand-packed," and "water-packed," each with well-understood meaning. Daniel v. State, 61 Ala. 4. A civil and a criminal statute have been enacted to prevent the fraudulent packing of bales of cotton by "plating or otherwise." Code 1907, §§ 3734, 6683. When cotton is "ginned and packed" into a merchantable bale, the warranty is implied that the lint coming from the gin has not been so dealt with or manipulated as to fraudulently increase its weight, that wet or damaged staple has not been placed therein, and that the sides of the bale from whence the sample is to be taken have not been plated with a better staple.
A "water-packed" bale of cotton is one to the lint of which water was added in such manner that the weight was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Goldstein
...p. 913; Thorn v. Browne, 257 F. 519); to prevent fraud in "packing cotton" (Code, § 6683; Daniel v. State, 61 Ala. 4; Wallace v. Crosthwait, 196 Ala. 356, 71 So. 666); the inspection, regulation, and licensing statutes municipalities (Code, § 1338 et seq.; Ward v. Markstein, 196 Ala. 209, 7......
-
Jefferson County v. Busby
... ... a cause tried without a jury, "the Supreme Court may ... render such judgment as the trial court should have ... rendered." Wallace v. Crosthwait, 196 Ala. 356, ... 71 So. 666 ... The ... "appellate court, in reversing judgment rendered by ... trial court without a ... ...
-
M. Hohenberg & Co. v. Hendrix
...review may here be had without exception having been reserved thereto. Headley v. McCall, 205 Ala. 108, 87 So. 355, and Wallace v. Crosthwait, 196 Ala. 356, 71 So. 666. defendant's claim of set-off is as follows: On November 1, 1920, he had for sale 65 bales of cotton which he forwarded to ......