Conway v. Hill Grocery Co.

141 So. 233, 224 Ala. 558, 1932 Ala. LEXIS 116
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedApril 14, 1932
Docket6 Div. 112.
StatusPublished

This text of 141 So. 233 (Conway v. Hill Grocery Co.) 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
Conway v. Hill Grocery Co., 141 So. 233, 224 Ala. 558, 1932 Ala. LEXIS 116 (Ala. 1932).

Opinion

*559 BROWN, J.

This appeal is by the plaintiff from the order of the court granting defendant’s motion for a new trial.

The first count' of the complaint declares as for the breach of the condition of a written lease entered into between the parties on the 15th day of August, 1925, “for failure to deliver over the furniture and fixtures” in the leased premises at the expiration of the lease, and for attorney’s foes for the prosecution of the suit as stipulated in the lease.

While it appears from the bill of exceptions that the witnesses were interrogated in respect to the lease which was handed to one of the witnesses during the trial, it does not appear that the lea so itself was offered in evidence; nor is it set out in the bill of exceptions.

At the conclusion of the evidence and before the jury retired, the defendant excepted to that part of the oral charge of the court authorizing them to ascertain and assess against the defendant an attorney’s fee, and also requested the affirmative charge as to count one, which was refused.

The lease not being in evidence, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover on the first count of the complaint, and the rulings of the court above stated as to this count justified the granting of a new trial. Burns v. Broughton et al., 223 Ala. 527, 137 So. 418; Mansfield v. Morgan, 140 Ala. 567, 37 So. 393; Alabama Power Co. v. Conine, 207 Ala. 435 93 So. 22.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS .and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Alabama Power Co. v. Conine
93 So. 22 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1922)
Mansfield v. Morgan
140 Ala. 567 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
141 So. 233, 224 Ala. 558, 1932 Ala. LEXIS 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conway-v-hill-grocery-co-ala-1932.