Abraham Bros. v. Means

Alabama Court of Appeals

Abraham Bros. v. Means

78 So. 459, 16 Ala. App. 429, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 109

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 2, 1918

Docket3 Div. 216.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 78 So. 459 (Abraham Bros. v. Means) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abraham Bros. v. Means, 78 So. 459, 16 Ala. App. 429, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 109 (Ala. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This ease was carried to the Supreme Court on certiorari, and by that court reversed and remanded to this court for further action. We are now asked to pass upon the questions not considered in the first opinion. Abraham Bros. v. Noah Means, ante, p. 42, 75 South. 187.

[1,2] The cause was tried on two counts; count 2 claiming for a breach of warranty, and count 3 for money had and received. There was nothing to indicate that the claims as set out were for inconsistent remedies growing out of the same transaction. The complaint therefore was not subject to demurrer on that ground. Code 1907, § 5328. Issue being joined on both counts, and there being evidence tending to sustain each of the counts, the refusal to give the affirmative charge as to either count was not error. Both counts being before the jury, and there being evidence tending to support each, the court properly charged on the law as applicable to each count.

[3] Where it develops on the trial that there are counts in the complaint asserting inconsistent remedies growing out of the same transaction, the court, on motion, will require the plaintiff to elect as to which remedy he will pursue, but the defendant did not make this motion, but allowed the trial to proceed to judgment.

Application overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This ease was carried to the Supreme Court on certiorari, and by that court reversed and remanded to this court for further action. We are now asked to pass upon the questions not considered in the first opinion. Abraham Bros. v. Noah Means, ante, p. 42, 75 South. 187.

[1,2] The cause was tried on two counts; count 2 claiming for a breach of warranty, and count 3 for money had and received. There was nothing to indicate that the claims as set out were for inconsistent remedies growing out of the same transaction. The complaint therefore was not subject to demurrer on that ground. Code 1907, § 5328. Issue being joined on both counts, and there being evidence tending to sustain each of the counts, the refusal to give the affirmative charge as to either count was not error. Both counts being before the jury, and there being evidence tending to support each, the court properly charged on the law as applicable to each count.

[3] Where it develops on the trial that there are counts in the complaint asserting inconsistent remedies growing out of the same transaction, the court, on motion, will require the plaintiff to elect as to which remedy he will pursue, but the defendant did not make this motion, but allowed the trial to proceed to judgment.

Application overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 So. 459, 16 Ala. App. 429, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abraham-bros-v-means-alactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack