Field's Adm'r v. Bevil

Supreme Court of Alabama

Field's Adm'r v. Bevil

12 Ala. 608

DecidedJune 15, 1847

StatusPublished

This text of 12 Ala. 608 (Field's Adm'r v. Bevil) 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

Field's Adm'r v. Bevil, 12 Ala. 608 (Ala. 1847).

Pincite

Opinion

GOLDTHWAITE, J.

1. It is possible the excluded evidence might be proper if aided by other proof showing the payment of these accounts by the intestate, but without aid from other sources, the mere fact that they were found in his possession, certainly did not sustain the issue. Prima facie, this proof was irrelevant, and as such, if insisted upon as proper to go before the jury, the defendant should have intimated his intention to sustain it by other evidence. When evidence is offered seemingly irrelevant to the matter in issue, it is the duty of the party offering it, to show how it can be made relevant by connection with other facts or circumstances to be offered, or already in evidence. [Crenshaw v. Davenport, 6 Ala. Rep. 390, and cases there cited.]

2. The other point is equally clear against the defendant. The receipt of a third party, indicating that he had received the note of the defendant’s intestate in payment of an account contracted by the plaintiff, was certainly no evidence to charge the latter, either with or without the note. It may be, for any thing which appears, that the note thus spoken of, was given by the intestate upon some other consideration than money from the plaintiff; at any rate, it is no evidence of an assumpsit, even on account of, or at the request of the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

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

GOLDTHWAITE, J.

1. It is possible the excluded evidence might be proper if aided by other proof showing the payment of these accounts by the intestate, but without aid from other sources, the mere fact that they were found in his possession, certainly did not sustain the issue. Prima facie, this proof was irrelevant, and as such, if insisted upon as proper to go before the jury, the defendant should have intimated his intention to sustain it by other evidence. When evidence is offered seemingly irrelevant to the matter in issue, it is the duty of the party offering it, to show how it can be made relevant by connection with other facts or circumstances to be offered, or already in evidence. [Crenshaw v. Davenport, 6 Ala. Rep. 390, and cases there cited.]

2. The other point is equally clear against the defendant. The receipt of a third party, indicating that he had received the note of the defendant’s intestate in payment of an account contracted by the plaintiff, was certainly no evidence to charge the latter, either with or without the note. It may be, for any thing which appears, that the note thus spoken of, was given by the intestate upon some other consideration than money from the plaintiff; at any rate, it is no evidence of an assumpsit, even on account of, or at the request of the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Ala. 608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fields-admr-v-bevil-ala-1847.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack