Wood v. Traders' Securities Co.

• Decision Date: 23 October 1930
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 968.
• Citation: 130 So. 398,221 Ala. 629
• Parties: WOOD ET AL. v. TRADERS' SECURITIES CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

130 So. 398

221 Ala. 629

WOOD ET AL. v. TRADERS' SECURITIES CO.

7 Div. 968.

Supreme Court of Alabama

October 23, 1930

Appeal fom Circuit Court, Clay County; E. P. Gay, Judge.

Action upon trade acceptances by the Traders' Securities Company against Mrs. Z. T. Wood and S. H. Wood. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Transferred from Court of Appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

In action on trade acceptances, sustaining objections to questions propounded by defendants seeking evidence in support of plea of fraud held error.

The following questions were propounded by defendants to witness Mrs. Z. T. Wood:

"Mrs Wood, when these trade acceptances were signed, did you have any agreement with the Arch Manufacturing Company?"

"What was the consideration, if any, Mrs. Wood, of these trade acceptances?"

"Mrs. Wood, when these trade acceptances were signed, before they were signed, did you have any agreement with the Arch Manufacturing Company?"

"Mrs. Wood, when you bought this jewelry, did you and the Arch Manufacturing Company agree that the Arch Manufacturing Company would fix the price at which this product would be sold by you?"

"Did the Arch Manufacturing Company agree that they would not sell to anybody else in Ashland but you?"

"Did you agree, Mrs. Wood, that you would not buy from anybody but them?"

"I will ask you, Mrs. Wood, if the person that made that agreement with you signed the trade acceptances?"

"Now, Mrs. Wood, I will ask you if you had a personal agreement with the agent of the Arch Manufacturing Company by which you received the goods from the Arch Manufacturing Company?"

"Mrs. Wood, I think I asked you if the Arch Manufacturing Company agreed with you not to sell anybody else in Ashland but you?"

"Mrs. Wood, did you agree with the Arch Manufacturing Company that you would buy these wares from them and no one else?"

"Did you have a further agreement with them in that transaction that you would not buy any wares from any other than the Arch Manufacturing Company?"

"Did you go further in that contract and agree that you would not sell these wares when you obtained them at a less price or a larger price than the list price under the terms of the contract?"

"Mrs. Wood, I will ask you if you authorized the agent of the Arch Manufacturing Company to go to your father-in-law, Mr. S. H. Wood, and obtain his name on these papers?"

"Did you tell him to go to Mr. Wood and get him to sign with you for the purpose of obtaining goods?"

The trial court sustained plaintiff's objections to each of these questions, and these rulings are made the basis of assignments 52 to 63, inclusive, and 65.

The following questions were propounded by defendants to witness S. H. Wood:

"Mr. Wood, I will ask you if the agents of the Arch Manufacturing Company came to you and obtained your signature to these trade acceptances?"

"I will ask you if he stated to you that Mrs. Z. T. Wood sent him to you to get your signature?"

The action of the trial court in sustaining plaintiff's objections to these questions is made the basis of assignments 69 and 72.

Plea A-2 is as follows:

"The defendant, S. H. Wood, for plea, saith: That the plaintiff ought not to recover under his complaint, for that an agent of the Arch Manufacturing Company, acting within the line and scope of his employment, whose name is not known to the defendant, S. H. Wood, procured the signature of the defendant, S. H. Wood, by means of misrepresentation, fraud and deceit, in this: That he procured the trade acceptances, the foundation of this suit, to be signed by Mrs. Rena Wood, the daughter-in-law of the defendant S. H. Wood and stated to the defendant that Mrs. Z. T. Wood wanted defendant, S. H.

Wood, to sign the said trade acceptance with her, and that some good and sufficient surety would have to sign with her, whereupon the said defendant, S. H. Wood, signed the same and such representation is false, and the said agent of the said Arch Manufacturing Company knew that the same was false at the time he made same, and that the defendant, S. H. Wood, relied upon the said misrepresentation of the said agent, to his injury; and that after said trade acceptances were thus obtained, same were transferred to the Traders Securities Company, and that said Traders Securities Company, a corporation, had knowledge of said misrepresentation, fraud and deceit upon the said defendant, S. H. Wood, at the time said trade acceptance was transferred to them, and taken and accepted by said Traders Securities Company, from the said Arch Manufacturing Company."

Hardegree & Cockrell, of Ashland, for appellants.

John W. Overton, of Wedowee, for appellee.

GARDNER J.

Defendants, upon the purchase of certain merchandise from the Arch Manufacturing Company, executed to said company trade acceptances in the sum of $39.60 each, which were assigned to plaintiff corporation. This suit was for recovery in separate counts upon five of said trade acceptances, resulting in a judgment for plaintiff, from which defendants appeal.

Defendants take the point that the court was without jurisdiction, as the amount of each trade acceptance was below the jurisdictional sum of $50. Section 6676, Code 1923. But the aggregate of these acceptances was far in excess of this jurisdictional sum, and the counts seeking recovery upon such separate acceptances were properly joined in the complaint under the provisions of section 9466, Code 1923. The jurisdictional point is not well taken. Wood v. McClure, 209 Ala. 523, 96 So. 577; volume 6 Ala. and So. Digest, p. 553.

At the conclusion of the evidence, the court instructed the jury, at plaintiff's request in writing, that if they believed the evidence the verdict would be for $231.45, the amount of the five trade acceptances. We do not find, however, from a review of this record, where plaintiff offered in evidence more than four of these acceptances. This was doubtless an oversight, but, however, that may be, we must consider the record as we here find it, and so considered, the giving of the charge constitutes error to reverse.

The questions propounded by defendants, to which objections were sustained (assignments of error 52-62, inclusive) were intended to elicit...