Fields v. First Nat. Bank

Supreme Court of Alabama

Fields v. First Nat. Bank

113 So. 298, 216 Ala. 381, 1927 Ala. LEXIS 169

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 15, 1927

Docket6 Div. 800.

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 113 So. 298 (Fields v. First Nat. Bank) 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

Fields v. First Nat. Bank, 113 So. 298, 216 Ala. 381, 1927 Ala. LEXIS 169 (Ala. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

SOMERVILLE, J.

Where the error assigned is the sustention of a demurrer to a plea, an argument asserting merely that the plea sets up so and so, and “is a good plea,” is not sufficient to save the assignment from the implication of waiver by non-insistence. However, defendant had the benefit of anything available under pleas 2 and 5 under other pleas, and their elimination on demurrer could not have been prejudicial.

In connection with the testimony of plaintiff’s cashier tending to show his agreement with defendant in that regard, the original deposit slips, showing deposits by the bank to defendant’s credit of the several sums of $1,500 and $750, shown to have been the proceeds of the notes for those amounts executed by him, were competent evidence of the transactions recited, along with the ledger sheets showing the first permanent entry of those items in the form of an account. Diament v. Colloty, 66 N. J. Law, 295, 49 A. 445, 808; 22 Corp. Jur. 887, § 1077.

The slips and entries were made in due course by the cashier, or under his immediate supervision, and meet every requirement for admissibility. Code, § 7701; Loveman v. McQueen, 203 Ala. 280, 82 So. 530.

The questions propounded to defendant by his counsel, designed to show the date of his return from Sulligent in 1922, and that he had no connection with W. R. Teague’s business after that time, were proper questions; but their exclusion was without prejudice, in view of the fact that both questions were in fact answered afterwards, and had, in substance, been answered on the witness’ original examination.

It may be that the weight of the evidence supports the contentions of defendant, but we could not for that reason set aside the judgment of the trial court based on the testimony of witnesses heard viva voce, and being, therefore, in practical effect, the equivalent of a jury’s verdict. We find no error in the record, and the judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

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

SOMERVILLE, J.

Where the error assigned is the sustention of a demurrer to a plea, an argument asserting merely that the plea sets up so and so, and “is a good plea,” is not sufficient to save the assignment from the implication of waiver by non-insistence. However, defendant had the benefit of anything available under pleas 2 and 5 under other pleas, and their elimination on demurrer could not have been prejudicial.

In connection with the testimony of plaintiff’s cashier tending to show his agreement with defendant in that regard, the original deposit slips, showing deposits by the bank to defendant’s credit of the several sums of $1,500 and $750, shown to have been the proceeds of the notes for those amounts executed by him, were competent evidence of the transactions recited, along with the ledger sheets showing the first permanent entry of those items in the form of an account. Diament v. Colloty, 66 N. J. Law, 295, 49 A. 445, 808; 22 Corp. Jur. 887, § 1077.

The slips and entries were made in due course by the cashier, or under his immediate supervision, and meet every requirement for admissibility. Code, § 7701; Loveman v. McQueen, 203 Ala. 280, 82 So. 530.

The questions propounded to defendant by his counsel, designed to show the date of his return from Sulligent in 1922, and that he had no connection with W. R. Teague’s business after that time, were proper questions; but their exclusion was without prejudice, in view of the fact that both questions were in fact answered afterwards, and had, in substance, been answered on the witness’ original examination.

It may be that the weight of the evidence supports the contentions of defendant, but we could not for that reason set aside the judgment of the trial court based on the testimony of witnesses heard viva voce, and being, therefore, in practical effect, the equivalent of a jury’s verdict. We find no error in the record, and the judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 So. 298, 216 Ala. 381, 1927 Ala. LEXIS 169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fields-v-first-nat-bank-ala-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack