Kearley v. Sellers, Richardson & Co.

Alabama Court of Appeals

Kearley v. Sellers, Richardson & Co.

75 So. 271, 16 Ala. App. 65, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 127

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 17, 1917

Docket1 Div. 184.

StatusPublished

This text of 75 So. 271 (Kearley v. Sellers, Richardson & 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

Kearley v. Sellers, Richardson & Co., 75 So. 271, 16 Ala. App. 65, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 127 (Ala. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

[1,2] If the arrangement between the plaintiffs and Daniels was a lease of the warehouse, and the relation of landlord and' tenant existed between them, then the warehousing account charged to defendants was the property of Daniels, and the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover. If, however, the relation between the plaintiffs and Daniels was that of principal and agent, and Daniels had no authority to accept goods in payment of the warehousing bill of defendants, or to agree with defendants that this warehousing account could be credited on the account of Daniels, then the plaintiffs should have recovered.

These questions were for the jury under the evidence, and the court should have refused the afiirmative charge requested by the defendants.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

[1,2] If the arrangement between the plaintiffs and Daniels was a lease of the warehouse, and the relation of landlord and' tenant existed between them, then the warehousing account charged to defendants was the property of Daniels, and the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover. If, however, the relation between the plaintiffs and Daniels was that of principal and agent, and Daniels had no authority to accept goods in payment of the warehousing bill of defendants, or to agree with defendants that this warehousing account could be credited on the account of Daniels, then the plaintiffs should have recovered.

These questions were for the jury under the evidence, and the court should have refused the afiirmative charge requested by the defendants.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 So. 271, 16 Ala. App. 65, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kearley-v-sellers-richardson-co-alactapp-1917.