Columbia Veneer, etc., Co. v. Cottonwood Lumber Co.

Tennessee Supreme Court

Columbia Veneer, etc., Co. v. Cottonwood Lumber Co.

99 Tenn. 122

CourtTennessee Supreme Court

DecidedMay 22, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 99 Tenn. 122 (Columbia Veneer, etc., Co. v. Cottonwood Lumber Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Tennessee Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Columbia Veneer, etc., Co. v. Cottonwood Lumber Co., 99 Tenn. 122 (Tenn. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Caldwell, J.

The Columbia Veneer & Box Company appeals in error from a judgment in favor of the Cottonwood Lumber Company for $375, for the alleged conversion of a raft of sycamore logs.

At the beginning of the trial in the Court below, the plaintiff in error requested the trial Judge to [123]*123deliver a written charge. W-hat was intended, originally, to be a complete charge was reduced to writing; but, after it was read to the jury, other instructions, concerning market value, were added orally. The latter action was fatally erroneous. Every word of the entire charge should have been reduced to writing. The language of the statute under which the request was made is as follows: "On the trial of civil cases in the Courts of this State, it shall be the duty of the Judge before wh,om the same is tried, at the request of either party, plaintiff or defendant, to reduce every word in his charge to writing before it is delivered to the jury, and all subsequent instructions which may be asked for by the jury, or which may be given by the Judge, shall, in like manner, be reduced to writing before being delivered to the jury.” Acts 1875, Ch. 37; Code (M. & V.), § 3672; (Shannon), § 4683. This requirement is mandatory, and cannot be avoided. Insurance Co. v. Trustees, etc., 91 Tenn., 135.

Reverse and remand.

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

Caldwell, J.

The Columbia Veneer & Box Company appeals in error from a judgment in favor of the Cottonwood Lumber Company for $375, for the alleged conversion of a raft of sycamore logs.

At the beginning of the trial in the Court below, the plaintiff in error requested the trial Judge to [123]*123deliver a written charge. W-hat was intended, originally, to be a complete charge was reduced to writing; but, after it was read to the jury, other instructions, concerning market value, were added orally. The latter action was fatally erroneous. Every word of the entire charge should have been reduced to writing. The language of the statute under which the request was made is as follows: "On the trial of civil cases in the Courts of this State, it shall be the duty of the Judge before wh,om the same is tried, at the request of either party, plaintiff or defendant, to reduce every word in his charge to writing before it is delivered to the jury, and all subsequent instructions which may be asked for by the jury, or which may be given by the Judge, shall, in like manner, be reduced to writing before being delivered to the jury.” Acts 1875, Ch. 37; Code (M. & V.), § 3672; (Shannon), § 4683. This requirement is mandatory, and cannot be avoided. Insurance Co. v. Trustees, etc., 91 Tenn., 135.

Reverse and remand.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 Tenn. 122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/columbia-veneer-etc-co-v-cottonwood-lumber-co-tenn-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack