Mutual Loan Soc. v. Letson

Supreme Court of Alabama

Mutual Loan Soc. v. Letson

76 So. 17, 200 Ala. 251, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 400

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMay 17, 1917

Docket6 Div. 519.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 76 So. 17 (Mutual Loan Soc. v. Letson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mutual Loan Soc. v. Letson, 76 So. 17, 200 Ala. 251, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 400 (Ala. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

SAYRE, J.

Aside from other considerations which might suffice to justify the action of the trial court in granting a new trial on plaintiff’s (appellee’s) motion,. the court holds there was no error for the reason that there was no formal or conclusive evidence, either on defendant’s books or elsewhere ; i. e., there was no authenticated certificate of stock, to show that plaintiff was a stockholder in defendant corporation, while there was evidence to the effect that defendr ant had denied plaintiff’s ownership of stock, > contending that an agent had received the money with which plaintiff intended to pay for stock and had embezzled the same to plaintiff’s loss. It cannot be said in this' state of the evidence, as matter of law on undisputed facts, that plaintiff had not the right to recover the money he had paid to defendant’s agent for stock he did not get; aind, if any act of rescission on his part was necessary, the bringing of the suit served that purpose. Hence it is that the court erred in giving the .general affirmative charge for defendant at the trial, and did the proper thing when it afterwards set aside the judgment and granted a new trial..

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. J., and McCLELLAN and GARDNER, JJ., concur.

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

SAYRE, J.

Aside from other considerations which might suffice to justify the action of the trial court in granting a new trial on plaintiff’s (appellee’s) motion,. the court holds there was no error for the reason that there was no formal or conclusive evidence, either on defendant’s books or elsewhere ; i. e., there was no authenticated certificate of stock, to show that plaintiff was a stockholder in defendant corporation, while there was evidence to the effect that defendr ant had denied plaintiff’s ownership of stock, > contending that an agent had received the money with which plaintiff intended to pay for stock and had embezzled the same to plaintiff’s loss. It cannot be said in this' state of the evidence, as matter of law on undisputed facts, that plaintiff had not the right to recover the money he had paid to defendant’s agent for stock he did not get; aind, if any act of rescission on his part was necessary, the bringing of the suit served that purpose. Hence it is that the court erred in giving the .general affirmative charge for defendant at the trial, and did the proper thing when it afterwards set aside the judgment and granted a new trial..

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. J., and McCLELLAN and GARDNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 So. 17, 200 Ala. 251, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mutual-loan-soc-v-letson-ala-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack