Kendrick v. Chafin

Alabama Court of Appeals

Kendrick v. Chafin

57 So. 78, 2 Ala. App. 452, 1911 Ala. App. LEXIS 94

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 21, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 57 So. 78 (Kendrick v. Chafin) 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

Kendrick v. Chafin, 57 So. 78, 2 Ala. App. 452, 1911 Ala. App. LEXIS 94 (Ala. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

WALKEB, P. J.

Though much of the evidence offered by the plaintiff’s (appellants here) was excluded under the rulings of the court which are not assigned as errors, yet there was enough in the remaining evi[454]*454dence to warrant an inference that the amount of lumber delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendant was Avorth considerably more than $15 which the evidence tended to show had been paid by the defendant on the account. In this situation, though the evidence left in the case by the rulings of the court did not show the amount of the balance owing by the defendant, yet it was such as to support a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for at least a nominal amount. In an action in contract, the successful party is entitled to full costs.—Code 1907, § 3662; Stevens v. Standard Oil Co. 156 Ala. 581, 47 South. 140.

It is error to exclude all the evidence offered by the plaintiff, as was done in this case, where it is such as to support a verdict in his favor; and this error involves injury when the result of it is to deprive the plaintiff of a judgment in his favor carrying the costs of the suit.-—13 Cyc. 21.

Reversed and remanded..

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

WALKEB, P. J.

Though much of the evidence offered by the plaintiff’s (appellants here) was excluded under the rulings of the court which are not assigned as errors, yet there was enough in the remaining evi[454]*454dence to warrant an inference that the amount of lumber delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendant was Avorth considerably more than $15 which the evidence tended to show had been paid by the defendant on the account. In this situation, though the evidence left in the case by the rulings of the court did not show the amount of the balance owing by the defendant, yet it was such as to support a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for at least a nominal amount. In an action in contract, the successful party is entitled to full costs.—Code 1907, § 3662; Stevens v. Standard Oil Co. 156 Ala. 581, 47 South. 140.

It is error to exclude all the evidence offered by the plaintiff, as was done in this case, where it is such as to support a verdict in his favor; and this error involves injury when the result of it is to deprive the plaintiff of a judgment in his favor carrying the costs of the suit.-—13 Cyc. 21.

Reversed and remanded..

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 So. 78, 2 Ala. App. 452, 1911 Ala. App. LEXIS 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kendrick-v-chafin-alactapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack