Hughes v. Albertville Mercantile Co.

Alabama Court of Appeals

Hughes v. Albertville Mercantile Co.

57 So. 98, 3 Ala. App. 462, 1911 Ala. App. LEXIS 162

DecidedDecember 19, 1911

StatusPublished

This text of 57 So. 98 (Hughes v. Albertville Mercantile Co.) 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

Hughes v. Albertville Mercantile Co., 57 So. 98, 3 Ala. App. 462, 1911 Ala. App. LEXIS 162 (Ala. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

WALKEB, P. J.

The complaint counts upon a joint cause of action against all of the defendants named in it. On the trial there was evidence tending to show that the account- sued on was not jointly made by the two defendants, but that whatever liability the defendant Hughes (the appellant here) had incurred in reference to that account was the result of separate dealings or transactions between him and the plaintiff in regard to it. “Though the suit may be against several defendants, and the complaint allege a joint contract, if, from the evidence, it appears that one of the defendants did not in fact make the contract jointly with the others, the complaint may be amended by striking out the name of the person so improperly joined. In such case, the amendment is regarded as a correction of a description of the cause of -action.”—Jones v. Englehardt, 78 Ala. 505. Under the aspect of the evidence above mentioned, there was a fatal variance between the allegations and the proof, which -was curable by an amendment of the complaint striking out one of the parties defendant; and the allowance of such an amendment did not constitute a ground for discontinuing the action on the motion of the remaining defendant,—Code, § 5367; Jones v. Englehardt, supra; Cobb v. Keith, 110 Ala. 614, 18 South. 325; Jackson v. Bush, 82 Ala. 396, 1 South. 175.

[464]*464The trial court charged the jury upon the effect of the testimony, without being required to do so by one of the parties. This is forbidden by the statute, and constitutes a ground of reversal.—Code, § 5362; Mayer v. Thompson-Hutchinson Building Co., 116 Ala. 634, 22 South. 859.

Reversed and remanded.

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

WALKEB, P. J.

The complaint counts upon a joint cause of action against all of the defendants named in it. On the trial there was evidence tending to show that the account- sued on was not jointly made by the two defendants, but that whatever liability the defendant Hughes (the appellant here) had incurred in reference to that account was the result of separate dealings or transactions between him and the plaintiff in regard to it. “Though the suit may be against several defendants, and the complaint allege a joint contract, if, from the evidence, it appears that one of the defendants did not in fact make the contract jointly with the others, the complaint may be amended by striking out the name of the person so improperly joined. In such case, the amendment is regarded as a correction of a description of the cause of -action.”—Jones v. Englehardt, 78 Ala. 505. Under the aspect of the evidence above mentioned, there was a fatal variance between the allegations and the proof, which -was curable by an amendment of the complaint striking out one of the parties defendant; and the allowance of such an amendment did not constitute a ground for discontinuing the action on the motion of the remaining defendant,—Code, § 5367; Jones v. Englehardt, supra; Cobb v. Keith, 110 Ala. 614, 18 South. 325; Jackson v. Bush, 82 Ala. 396, 1 South. 175.

[464]*464The trial court charged the jury upon the effect of the testimony, without being required to do so by one of the parties. This is forbidden by the statute, and constitutes a ground of reversal.—Code, § 5362; Mayer v. Thompson-Hutchinson Building Co., 116 Ala. 634, 22 South. 859.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 So. 98, 3 Ala. App. 462, 1911 Ala. App. LEXIS 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughes-v-albertville-mercantile-co-alactapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack