Barker Cotton Mills Co. v. Sage

Supreme Court of Alabama

Barker Cotton Mills Co. v. Sage

70 So. 684, 195 Ala. 249, 1915 Ala. LEXIS 377

DecidedDecember 16, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 70 So. 684 (Barker Cotton Mills Co. v. Sage) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barker Cotton Mills Co. v. Sage, 70 So. 684, 195 Ala. 249, 1915 Ala. LEXIS 377 (Ala. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

MAYFIELD, J.

This is an appeal from the ruling of the trial court in granting a motion for a new trial.

The trial court properly granted the new trial, in an attempt to correct errors through which it probably led the jury to render a verdict for the defendant. Had the trial court refused the motion we would have no hesitancy in reversing such action. The plaintiff, under the undisputed evidence, was entitled to the affirmative charge. The defendant, under its own evidence, owed the plaintiff $3,500 as principal and interest thereon, after demand, and failure to pay. Neither the defendant nor E. G. Barker, Jr., its general manager and plaintiff’s son-in-law, had any right or power to cancel the debt due the plaintiff from the defendant company by giving Barker a credit on its books for a like amount.

The contrary of this proposition was the only defense attempted, and the defense utterly failed, in that no authority was shown for such manipulation.

It results that the judgment or order granting a new trial was correct, and it is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Anderson, C. J., and Somerville and Thomas, JJ., concur.

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

MAYFIELD, J.

This is an appeal from the ruling of the trial court in granting a motion for a new trial.

The trial court properly granted the new trial, in an attempt to correct errors through which it probably led the jury to render a verdict for the defendant. Had the trial court refused the motion we would have no hesitancy in reversing such action. The plaintiff, under the undisputed evidence, was entitled to the affirmative charge. The defendant, under its own evidence, owed the plaintiff $3,500 as principal and interest thereon, after demand, and failure to pay. Neither the defendant nor E. G. Barker, Jr., its general manager and plaintiff’s son-in-law, had any right or power to cancel the debt due the plaintiff from the defendant company by giving Barker a credit on its books for a like amount.

The contrary of this proposition was the only defense attempted, and the defense utterly failed, in that no authority was shown for such manipulation.

It results that the judgment or order granting a new trial was correct, and it is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Anderson, C. J., and Somerville and Thomas, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 So. 684, 195 Ala. 249, 1915 Ala. LEXIS 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barker-cotton-mills-co-v-sage-ala-1915.