Watson v. Hardaway-Covington Cotton Co.

• Decision Date: 15 October 1931
• Docket Number: 3 Div. 965.
• Citation: 137 So. 33,223 Ala. 443
• Parties: WATSON ET AL. v. HARDAWAY-COVINGTON COTTON CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

137 So. 33

223 Ala. 443

WATSON ET AL. v. HARDAWAY-COVINGTON COTTON CO.

3 Div. 965.

Supreme Court of Alabama

October 15, 1931

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Leon McCord, Judge.

Action for damages for breach of a verbal contract by D. L. Watson and others, composing the firm of Watson Brothers, against the Hardaway-Covington Cotton Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

T. E Martin and Steiner, Crum & Weil, all of Montgomery, and J. A Mulkey and W. O. Mulkey, both of Geneva, for appellants.

Thos B. Hill, Jr., and Wm. Inge Hill, both of Montgomery, for appellee.

THOMAS J.

The rules of evidence are important in every trial, and the assignments of error are based thereon. The several rulings are duly grouped and so considered.

The evidence was to the effect that the cotton in question was exposed to the flood waters in the spring of 1929; that during March or April, defendant's representatives inspected the cotton at Geneva and had a conference with the agents of plaintiffs as to reconditioning the same. The evidence as to what there transpired and what was agreed upon is in conflict. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

The contention of plaintiff was that there was a guaranty that cleaning and reconditioning made the cotton spinable and restored the same as it was before exposed to the flood waters, and with negligible loss in weight; that the process agreed to be employed was the picking and sun-drying process rather than another that was discussed between the parties.

It is agreed that the cotton was permitted to remain in the bale, on the streets of Geneva, from the date it was submerged (March 15 to 17, 1929) until shipped to Montgomery, and that it was four or five days in closed box cars in transit and received in Montgomery from April 8th or 10th to over a period of one week, and each car was unloaded immediately on arrival.

Its condition on arrival may be stated from the evidence to have been, according to witness Samuels, "heated, muddy, and discolored, two or three bands were off of it, of the hoops, it was all flared out and was heating, discolored and muddy, and the staple was deteriorating." Mr. Olin testified that "it was very wet" and some of it damaged; "there was some staple deterioration," and was very much discolored and "was caking up"; that it was perishing when it caked up, and some was very hot; that that condition had been going on for fifteen or twenty days. The effect of Mr. Keith's testimony was that it was water-soaked and congealed, and the bagging had been torn open on many bales and the cotton was heating. According to witness Beale's testimony, the "wet ends of bales were rotten and slimy, and heads were bursted open." Witness Giovanni said of its condition that "it was wet on one head thoroughly, and one or two bands off of each bale; that it was very wet and ragged, and badly discolored and heating *** that it would start to heat within ten days to two weeks from the time it was soaked." Mr. Covington testified that "it was heating and had mud on the end."

It is further shown without dispute that immediately upon the receipt of the cotton, it was unloaded and dismantled, and the wet and dry cotton separated, and the dry cotton rematched and rebaled; that the wet cotton was pulled apart, placed in windrows to dry in the sun in the daytime, taken in at night to protect it from the dew and weather, and, according to the defendant's witness, handled as carefully and expeditiously as it could be handled; that Covington gave it his personal attention. There was no dispute between the witness Giovanni's and Covington's testimony as to this feature. That the plaintiffs or Mr. J. P. Watson came to Montgomery in response to a letter from Mr. Covington to the effect that the cotton was in a rotten and deteriorated condition, and went to the yard where it was being reconditioned. The plaintiffs said they did not notice or know whether the cotton they looked at was their cotton or not; that they did not ask to see their cotton while in the cotton yard, but that the cotton they saw was partly rotten and in pretty bad shape; that they made no complaint to Mr. Covington about the process or method in which he was handling their cotton.

It is undisputed that the defendant notified the plaintiffs on June 1st that the work had been completed, sending them at that time a statement of the results obtained, showing the number of bales and weight of straight cotton, number of bales and weight of samples, and the number of bales and weight of pickings No. 1 and pickings No. 2; that on June 21st the plaintiffs received, in response to a request, a letter showing the grades of their straight cotton, and on July 30th, or August 1st, the defendant learned that the plaintiffs were making objections to the results obtained, by the receipt of a letter. Suit was filed on March 28th, following, just two days before the expiration of one year from the date of alleged contract, and ten months after the results of the work were known.

This statement of the evidence is sufficient to disclose the issues here involved.

Where the suit is for negligent handling and reconditioning of cotton, evidence as to the true condition of the cotton at the time of its delivery to the defendant at Montgomery for reconditioning is material to the issue and admissible. The questions to the several witnesses were within the rule of Churchill v. Walling, 205 Ala. 509, 88 So. 582; Hood v. Disston & Sons, 90 Ala. 377, 7 So. 732.

The fact that a question propounded to an expert witness will elicit an opinion from him in practical affirmation or disaffirmation of a material issue in a case will not suffice to render the question improper. The general rule that a witness should narrate the evidence, give the...