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 |
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:
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:
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:
Hardegree & Cockrell, of Ashland, for appellants.
John W. Overton, of Wedowee, for appellee.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co. of New York v. Murphy, 1 Div. 731.
... ... states. As pointed out in Woods v. Wood, 219 Ala ... 523, 122 So. 835, in proceedings, whose pleadings are not as ... in common-law ... law which so affects it. Wood v. Traders' Securities ... Co., 221 Ala. 629, 130 So. 398; Shearin v ... Pizitz, 208 Ala. 244, 94 So. 92 ... ...
- Bell, Rogers & Zemurray Bros. v. Jenkins
-
Revel v. Prince
...of the several counts on independent causes of action determine the amount sued for for jurisdictional purposes, Wood v. Traders' Securities Co., 221 Ala. 629, 130 So. 398, it is firmly settled by our decisions dealing with appeals or certiorari from justice of the peace courts to the circu......
-
W.T. Rawleigh Co. v. Hannon
... ... authorities which treat this matter, found cited in Wood ... v. Traders' Securities Co., 221 Ala. 629, 130 So ... 398, a case decided, however, before ... ...
-
Alabama
...action under Alabama law). 76. ALA. CODE § 27-12-8. 77. 77 So. 70 (Ala. Ct. App. 1917). 78. Id. at 72; see also Wood v. Traders’ Sec. Co., 130 So. 398 (Ala. 1930) (trial court erred in contract action by sustaining objections to questions intended to elicit evidence of trade restraints, inc......
-
Alabama. Practice Text
...minimum resale prices. 75 71. ALA. CODE § 27-12-8. 72. 77 So. 70 (Ala. Ct. App. 1917). 73. Id. at 72; see also Wood v. Traders’ Sec. Co., 130 So. 398 (Ala. 1930) (trial court erred in contract action by sustaining objections to questions intended to elicit evidence of trade restraints, incl......