Miller v. Simmons

Alabama Court of Appeals

Miller v. Simmons

104 So. 350, 20 Ala. App. 597, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 107

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 12, 1925

Docket6 Div. 624.

StatusPublished

This text of 104 So. 350 (Miller v. Simmons) 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

Miller v. Simmons, 104 So. 350, 20 Ala. App. 597, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 107 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMPOBD, J.

Plaintiff and defendant’s intestate entered into a written lease whereby defendant’s intestate leased from plaintiff certain lands, for a period of 10 years, at a stipulated rental of $35 per month, and there was evidence tending to prove that defendant’s intestate went into possession and occupied the premises under the terms of said lease. These facts, when proven, fix a liability upon defendant’s intestate to pay certain sums of money at certain deferred dates. In a suit for the unpaid rent under such a contract, the plaintiff must allege that the amount is due and unpaid; the plaintiff is not called upon to prove the negative averment, but the defendant, if the amounts claimed have been paid, must so plead, and, being an affirmative defense, tbe burden is on him to establish his plea. The right of recovery in this action, of course, presupposes due presentation of the claim.

The questions here involved were decided by this court in Sullivan v. Hobbs, 19 Ala. App. 465, 98 So. 307, and Ex parte Sullivan, 210 Ala. 372, 98 So. 309. In the Sullivan Case, supra, Pollak v. Winter, 166 Ala. 255, 51 So. 998, 52 So. 829, 53 So. 339, 139 Am. St. Rep. 33; Id., 173 Ala. 559, 55 So. 828, and cases of similar import were considered, and after consideration the foregoing rule was announced.

The rulings of the trial court were not in accord with the foregoing opinion, and, for the errors pointed out, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Beversed and remanded.

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

SAMPOBD, J.

Plaintiff and defendant’s intestate entered into a written lease whereby defendant’s intestate leased from plaintiff certain lands, for a period of 10 years, at a stipulated rental of $35 per month, and there was evidence tending to prove that defendant’s intestate went into possession and occupied the premises under the terms of said lease. These facts, when proven, fix a liability upon defendant’s intestate to pay certain sums of money at certain deferred dates. In a suit for the unpaid rent under such a contract, the plaintiff must allege that the amount is due and unpaid; the plaintiff is not called upon to prove the negative averment, but the defendant, if the amounts claimed have been paid, must so plead, and, being an affirmative defense, tbe burden is on him to establish his plea. The right of recovery in this action, of course, presupposes due presentation of the claim.

The questions here involved were decided by this court in Sullivan v. Hobbs, 19 Ala. App. 465, 98 So. 307, and Ex parte Sullivan, 210 Ala. 372, 98 So. 309. In the Sullivan Case, supra, Pollak v. Winter, 166 Ala. 255, 51 So. 998, 52 So. 829, 53 So. 339, 139 Am. St. Rep. 33; Id., 173 Ala. 559, 55 So. 828, and cases of similar import were considered, and after consideration the foregoing rule was announced.

The rulings of the trial court were not in accord with the foregoing opinion, and, for the errors pointed out, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Beversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 So. 350, 20 Ala. App. 597, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-simmons-alactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack