Hanks v. Everett

Alabama Court of Appeals

Hanks v. Everett

122 So. 700, 23 Ala. App. 190, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 153

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 9, 1929

Docket7 Div. 554.

StatusPublished

This text of 122 So. 700 (Hanks v. Everett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hanks v. Everett, 122 So. 700, 23 Ala. App. 190, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 153 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

This is a suit on account, or on account for work and labor done by plaintiff at defendant’s request, and was instituted by appellant against appellee. The complaint filed was accompanied by a verified, itemized statement of the account sued on, as provided by section 7666 of the Code of 1923. The defendant (appellee), likewise in accordance with section 7666 of the Code of 1923, filed an affidavit denying the correctness of the account sued on.

In effect, the only question presented for our consideration is that of the propriety vel non of the trial court’s action in overruling appellant’s motion to set aside the verdict of the jury which had been rendered in favor of appellee, and also the judgment rendered thereon, and to grant appellant a new trial.

True, in appellee’s sworn denial, supra, there does appear an admission of the correctness of one item, as set forth in appellant’s sworn account, which would seem to be due appellant,’ free of offsets. But appellee, testifying at the trial as a witness in his own behalf, denied owing appellant any amount. So the issue of his indebtedness vel non to appellant was properly submitted to the jury for their solution. Their verdict being in favor of appellee, and the trial court, who saw and heard the witnesses, refusing to disturb their finding, we would not' and do not feel authorized to overturn his action. Cobb v. Malone & Collins, 92 Ala. 630, 9 So. 738.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

RICE, J.

This is a suit on account, or on account for work and labor done by plaintiff at defendant’s request, and was instituted by appellant against appellee. The complaint filed was accompanied by a verified, itemized statement of the account sued on, as provided by section 7666 of the Code of 1923. The defendant (appellee), likewise in accordance with section 7666 of the Code of 1923, filed an affidavit denying the correctness of the account sued on.

In effect, the only question presented for our consideration is that of the propriety vel non of the trial court’s action in overruling appellant’s motion to set aside the verdict of the jury which had been rendered in favor of appellee, and also the judgment rendered thereon, and to grant appellant a new trial.

True, in appellee’s sworn denial, supra, there does appear an admission of the correctness of one item, as set forth in appellant’s sworn account, which would seem to be due appellant,’ free of offsets. But appellee, testifying at the trial as a witness in his own behalf, denied owing appellant any amount. So the issue of his indebtedness vel non to appellant was properly submitted to the jury for their solution. Their verdict being in favor of appellee, and the trial court, who saw and heard the witnesses, refusing to disturb their finding, we would not' and do not feel authorized to overturn his action. Cobb v. Malone & Collins, 92 Ala. 630, 9 So. 738.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 So. 700, 23 Ala. App. 190, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanks-v-everett-alactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack