Hatch. v. Varner

Supreme Court of Alabama

Hatch. v. Varner

43 So. 481, 150 Ala. 440, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 357

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedApril 4, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 43 So. 481 (Hatch. v. Varner) 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

Hatch. v. Varner, 43 So. 481, 150 Ala. 440, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 357 (Ala. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

MC’CLELLAN, J.

The appellee instituted this action for damages, against appellant. The trial Avas had on count 2 of the amended complaint to Avhich the general issue Avas pleaded. The original count, and the special pleas filed by defendant, all fell under rulings of the court. Count 2 conjunctively alleges that the entry of defendant or her agents on the premises Avas intentional. and Avrongful and that the subtenants named in the count were notified of defendant’s claim of a breach of the contract of rental, and Avere Avarned not to pay plaintiff their rents or deliver their crops to him. There-is an entire absence of testimony in this record tending to show any such entry by defendant or her agents. On the contrary, the only agent whose entry on the place is show Aras that of McDaniel, who, it appears, was there in obedience to the express invitation and solicitation of the plaintiff — the very opposite of a wrongful entry. The failure to support the material allegation indicated required the giving of the affirmative charge requested by the defendant, and its refusal Avas errer.

It is unnecessary to consider the other errors assigned. For the error stated, the judgment is reversed,, and the cause is remanded.

ReArersed and remanded.

' Tyson, C. J., and Doavdell and Anderson, JJ., concur.

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

MC’CLELLAN, J.

The appellee instituted this action for damages, against appellant. The trial Avas had on count 2 of the amended complaint to Avhich the general issue Avas pleaded. The original count, and the special pleas filed by defendant, all fell under rulings of the court. Count 2 conjunctively alleges that the entry of defendant or her agents on the premises Avas intentional. and Avrongful and that the subtenants named in the count were notified of defendant’s claim of a breach of the contract of rental, and Avere Avarned not to pay plaintiff their rents or deliver their crops to him. There-is an entire absence of testimony in this record tending to show any such entry by defendant or her agents. On the contrary, the only agent whose entry on the place is show Aras that of McDaniel, who, it appears, was there in obedience to the express invitation and solicitation of the plaintiff — the very opposite of a wrongful entry. The failure to support the material allegation indicated required the giving of the affirmative charge requested by the defendant, and its refusal Avas errer.

It is unnecessary to consider the other errors assigned. For the error stated, the judgment is reversed,, and the cause is remanded.

ReArersed and remanded.

' Tyson, C. J., and Doavdell and Anderson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 So. 481, 150 Ala. 440, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hatch-v-varner-ala-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack