Woodstock Iron Co. v. Reed

Decision Date14 June 1888
Citation4 So. 369,84 Ala. 493
PartiesWOODSTOCK IRON CO. v. REED ET AL. [1]
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from circuit court, Calhoun county; LEROY F. BOX, Judge.

Assumpsit, by Reed & Partlow against the Woodstock Iron Company, for amount due for coal delivered. The court charged the jury, among other things, "that if they believe from the evidence that under the contract the plaintiffs were to pay defendants, for chopping the wood made into coal, fifty cents per cord, and that plaintiffs were not to pay for chopping of any wood not made into coal, the plaintiffs would not be liable for the chopping of so much of the wood as was burned in August, 1883, by the fire which broke out in the coaling, and which was not made into coal." To the giving of this charge by the court the defendant excepted. The court, at the request of the plaintiffs in writing, gave the following charge, which recites substantially the tendency of the evidence as produced on the trial: "If the jury believe, from the evidence in this case, that Reed & Partlow delivered the coal to the Woodstock Iron Company under a contract that the Woodstock Iron Company would pay them $5.75 for every one hundred bushels of coal delivered, less $1.50 for the wood that was actually used in the burning of each one hundred bushels of coal so delivered, and that nothing was said or agreed between them about wood not used in the burning of the coal, then they must find for the plaintiffs, for the amount of coal delivered, at the rate of $5.75 for every one hundred bushels so delivered, after deducting, for the wood actually used in the burning of the coal, at the rate of $1.50 for every one hundred bushels of coal so delivered, and for orders filled and payments made for the coal delivered." The defendant excepted to the giving of this charge by the court; and now assigns the rulings of the court on the evidence, and the giving of these charges, as error. On the trial the plaintiffs were examined as witnesses in their own behalf, and, after having stated that the contract on which the suit was brought was a verbal contract, were asked, on direct examination, to state what was the said contract between them and the defendant. The defendant objected to the question and answer on the ground that the question called for a legal conclusion, and that it was left with the witness to state what was the legal effect of the contract, and that the evidence was irrelevant. The court overruled the defendant's objection, and the defendant duly excepted.

Knox & Bowie, for appellant.

Kelly & Smith, for appellees.

CLOPTON J.

The contract between the plaintiffs and defendant rested in parol, and it was competent to prove the terms of such agreement by oral evidence. No rule of evidence was thereby offended. It was not the statement of a conclusion, or of the legal effect of the contract, but of facts,-the terms agreed on by the parties. If the opposite party desired to test the accuracy or credibility of the testimony, or to show the true nature of the contract, what was said and done...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Sovereign Camp, W.O.W. v. Hoomes
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • April 25, 1929
    ... ... to its accustomed place"; Woodward Iron Co. v ... Spencer, 194 Ala. 285, 69 So. 902, in which witness ... might testify "that he 'was a ... "possession" (Steed v. Knowles, 97 Ala. 573, 12 So ... 75; Davis v. Reed, 211 Ala. 207, 100 So. 226; ... Driver v. Fitzpatrick, 209 Ala. 34, 95 So. 466; ... McMillan ... 247), and ... to state the terms of such agreement where it rests in parol ... ( Woodstock Iron Co. v. Reed et al., 84 Ala. 493, 4 ... So. 369); not, however, to state the legal effect of ... ...
  • Cunningham Hardware Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • April 26, 1923
    ... ... of May, 1921 ( Sovereign Camp W. O. W. v. Reed, 208 ... Ala. 457, 94 So. 910), and were "to the first pleas ... filed by the defendant" of date ... 377; E. T ... V. & G. R. Co. v. Watson, 90 Ala. 41, 7 So. 813; ... Woodstock Iron Co. v. Roberts, 87 Ala. 436, 6 So ... 349; Woodstock Iron Co. v. Reed & Partlow, 84 Ala ... ...
  • Gaston v. McDonald
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 20, 1929
    ... ... Steed v ... Knowles, 97 Ala. 573, 12 So. 75; Davis v. Reed, ... 211 Ala. 207, 100 So. 226; Driver v. Fitzpatrick, ... 209 Ala. 34, 95 So. 466; of the ... Co., 9 Ala. 247; and state the terms of such agreement ... if resting in parol, Woodstock Iron Co. v. Reed, 84 ... Ala. 493, 4 So. 369; and not to state the legal effect of a ... written ... ...
  • Alabama Power Co. v. Tatum
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • January 9, 1975
    ...and the party producing the document is a party to the instrument or claims a beneficial interest thereunder. Woodstock Iron Co. v. Reed, 84 Ala. 493, 4 So. 369 (1887); Ward v. Reynolds, 32 Ala. 384 While the authenticity of the document requirement has been met by the very nature of its di......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT