Duke v. Southern Hardware & Supply Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Duke v. Southern Hardware & Supply Co.

50 So. 892, 163 Ala. 477, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 549

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 30, 1909

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 50 So. 892 (Duke v. Southern Hardware & Supply 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

Duke v. Southern Hardware & Supply Co., 50 So. 892, 163 Ala. 477, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 549 (Ala. 1909).

Pincite

Opinions

SIMPSON, J.-

When one man loans money to another, if nothing is said about the time of payment, the presumption is that it is due on demand. I do not find, in the record, any evidence tending to show that, at the [479]*479time the money was loaned, there was any agreement that it was not to be repaid nntil tbe defendant was able. Tbe statements of tbe witness Hardaway Young do not show any such agreement, but only a purpose to allow tbe defendant to pay as be could out of bis salary, and, when defendant left tbeir employment, be considered tbe money due.

Tie circumstances of tbe loan are clearly detailed, and show that at that time there was no agreement that the money was not to be paid until tbe defendant was able, and there was no controversy about tbe fact that there has been a demand made for payment. Consequently charge 7, requested by tbe defendant was misleading, and properly refused.

.The judgment should be affirmed.

Dowdell, C. J., and Denson, Mayfield, and Sayre, JJ., concur.

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

SIMPSON, J.-

When one man loans money to another, if nothing is said about the time of payment, the presumption is that it is due on demand. I do not find, in the record, any evidence tending to show that, at the [479]*479time the money was loaned, there was any agreement that it was not to be repaid nntil tbe defendant was able. Tbe statements of tbe witness Hardaway Young do not show any such agreement, but only a purpose to allow tbe defendant to pay as be could out of bis salary, and, when defendant left tbeir employment, be considered tbe money due.

Tie circumstances of tbe loan are clearly detailed, and show that at that time there was no agreement that the money was not to be paid until tbe defendant was able, and there was no controversy about tbe fact that there has been a demand made for payment. Consequently charge 7, requested by tbe defendant was misleading, and properly refused.

.The judgment should be affirmed.

Dowdell, C. J., and Denson, Mayfield, and Sayre, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 So. 892, 163 Ala. 477, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duke-v-southern-hardware-supply-co-ala-1909.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack