Lum MacHinery & Supply Co. v. Short

Alabama Court of Appeals

Lum MacHinery & Supply Co. v. Short

78 So. 637, 16 Ala. App. 439, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 121

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 9, 1918

Docket4 Div. 525.

StatusPublished

This text of 78 So. 637 (Lum MacHinery & Supply Co. v. Short) 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

Lum MacHinery & Supply Co. v. Short, 78 So. 637, 16 Ala. App. 439, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 121 (Ala. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

The plaintiff contended that it sold defendant certain machinery at a stipulated price, retaining the title until paid, and took a contract in writing to that effect, to which defendant assented by affixing his mark; that the purchase price had not been paid; that default had been made; and that demand had been made for the return of tbe property. The defendant admitted a balance due, but contended that the, purchase was a straight sale, without retention of title in plaintiff, and that his mark had been obtained to the written contract by fraud. The evidence was in sharp conflict. Where this is the case, the affirmative charge is properly refused.

*440 The question of rescission is not involved in this case. The contract in its inception was either a sale reserving the title or it was a sale transferring the title, and the fact that the defendant discovered some ten months after the sale that plaintiff was-claiming title to the property under a contract to which defendant’s mark had been obtained by fraud would not make it necessary for defendant to offer to rescind, as, according to defendant’s contention, that contract never existed. Hence charges 2 and 3 were properly refused, and objections to questions to witnesses raising this question were properly sustained.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed-

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

The plaintiff contended that it sold defendant certain machinery at a stipulated price, retaining the title until paid, and took a contract in writing to that effect, to which defendant assented by affixing his mark; that the purchase price had not been paid; that default had been made; and that demand had been made for the return of tbe property. The defendant admitted a balance due, but contended that the, purchase was a straight sale, without retention of title in plaintiff, and that his mark had been obtained to the written contract by fraud. The evidence was in sharp conflict. Where this is the case, the affirmative charge is properly refused.

*440 The question of rescission is not involved in this case. The contract in its inception was either a sale reserving the title or it was a sale transferring the title, and the fact that the defendant discovered some ten months after the sale that plaintiff was-claiming title to the property under a contract to which defendant’s mark had been obtained by fraud would not make it necessary for defendant to offer to rescind, as, according to defendant’s contention, that contract never existed. Hence charges 2 and 3 were properly refused, and objections to questions to witnesses raising this question were properly sustained.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed-

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 So. 637, 16 Ala. App. 439, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lum-machinery-supply-co-v-short-alactapp-1918.