Bookmiller v. Jones

113 So. 32, 216 Ala. 298, 1927 Ala. LEXIS 109

Opinions

SOMERVILLE, J.

It is inferable from tbe testimony that tbe laborer's lien asserted by plaintiff on January 7, 1926, was for work done or completed within the period of 60 days preceding, and hence tbe plea of 60 days’ limitation was properly denied. Tbe plea would have been good as to labor done under other contract assignments prior to September 28, 1925, but the record does hot present that question.

It is .insisted that plaintiff, suing alone, could not recover, because his eoworker, Savage, was jointly interested with him in the compensation due for their joint or concurrent labor and was therefore a necessary party plaintiff to the suit.

121 Probably the weight of the evidence supports that view, but, on the whole, it was fairly a jury question, and its determination by the trial court, on testimony heard viva voce, will not be disturbed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. J., and THOMAS and BROWN, JJ., concur.