Faires v. Lodanc
This text of 10 Ala. 50 (Faires v. Lodanc) 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.
Opinion
We do not understand the plaintiff as insisting there is error in either of the charges actually given, but that the court below should also have instructed the jury as he requested. It appears the witnesses examined, differed materially in their statement of the contract. According to one, it was made by the plaintiff with the defendant, but the others speak of Marino as the principal debtor, and the defendant as his surety only. In this condition of the evidence, it is clear the plaintiff was entitled to the instruction- of the court, upon his view of the contract, and if the credit was given to the defendant, and not to Marino, there can be doubt the plaintiff was entitled to recover, although Marino was solely benefitted by the lease. In such a case no credit is given to the third person, and he is responsible in no manner to the plaintiff. [Roberts on Frauds, 216; Rhodes v. Leeds. 3 S. & P. 212.] For this error the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
10 Ala. 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faires-v-lodanc-ala-1846.