Payne v. Coleman

Alabama Court of Appeals

Payne v. Coleman

93 So. 222, 18 Ala. App. 525, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 192

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 19, 1922

Docket6 Div. 951.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 93 So. 222 (Payne v. Coleman) 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

Payne v. Coleman, 93 So. 222, 18 Ala. App. 525, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 192 (Ala. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

There are 16 assignments of error, raising many questions of law, involving constructions of the acts of Congress taking over the railroads and orders issued by the President of the United States and the Director General of Railroads, which under our view of this case, as presented by the record, are unnecessary of decision, and therefore we do not pass upon them.

The.plaintiff was injured while acting in the line and scope of his employment as a laborer on one of defendant’s work trains early in August, 1919. On August 12, 1919, he signed, in the presence of three witnesses, an instrument in writing, expressing a consideration of $50, releasing defendant from any and all liability growing out of the injuries for which he now sues, the defendant signing his own name to the release. In the absence of fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation of the contents, upon which the plaintiff relied, this release is a complete answer to the complaint, and, even if plaintiff’s signature was obtained by fraud, etc., the plaintiff, upon discovery of the fraud or deceit, must promptly disaffirm the transaction and tender back the amount of money received under it. Birmingham Ry., L. & P. Co. v. Jordan, 170 Ala. 530, 54 South. 280; Wooddy v. Mathews, 69 South. 609; 1 U. S. C. I. & F. Co. v. Marler, 17 Ala. App. 358, 86 South. 103.. In the last-cited case the Supreme Court, in Ex parte Marler v. U. S. C. I. P. & F. Co., 204 Ala. 342, 86 South. 108, approved as the correct statement of the law relating to the setting aside of releases for fraud, etc., the dissenting opinion, but,does not effect the holding of the majority upon the question here involved. We have considered the evidence en banc, from wbicb we conclude that there is no evidence upon which a jury could reasonably base a verdict that the release was not binding.

Even if plaintiff could pass that point, the testimony without conflict shows that he did not-elect to disaffirm for more than two years after he knew the release did’not contain what “he thought it did.” The defendant should have had the general affirmative charge, and for the error of the court in refusing to give this charge, and without passing on any other questions, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

1

Reported in full in the Southern Reporter; re- * ported as a memorandum decision without opinion in 194 Ala. 390.

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

SAMFORD, J.

There are 16 assignments of error, raising many questions of law, involving constructions of the acts of Congress taking over the railroads and orders issued by the President of the United States and the Director General of Railroads, which under our view of this case, as presented by the record, are unnecessary of decision, and therefore we do not pass upon them.

The.plaintiff was injured while acting in the line and scope of his employment as a laborer on one of defendant’s work trains early in August, 1919. On August 12, 1919, he signed, in the presence of three witnesses, an instrument in writing, expressing a consideration of $50, releasing defendant from any and all liability growing out of the injuries for which he now sues, the defendant signing his own name to the release. In the absence of fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation of the contents, upon which the plaintiff relied, this release is a complete answer to the complaint, and, even if plaintiff’s signature was obtained by fraud, etc., the plaintiff, upon discovery of the fraud or deceit, must promptly disaffirm the transaction and tender back the amount of money received under it. Birmingham Ry., L. & P. Co. v. Jordan, 170 Ala. 530, 54 South. 280; Wooddy v. Mathews, 69 South. 609; 1 U. S. C. I. & F. Co. v. Marler, 17 Ala. App. 358, 86 South. 103.. In the last-cited case the Supreme Court, in Ex parte Marler v. U. S. C. I. P. & F. Co., 204 Ala. 342, 86 South. 108, approved as the correct statement of the law relating to the setting aside of releases for fraud, etc., the dissenting opinion, but,does not effect the holding of the majority upon the question here involved. We have considered the evidence en banc, from wbicb we conclude that there is no evidence upon which a jury could reasonably base a verdict that the release was not binding.

Even if plaintiff could pass that point, the testimony without conflict shows that he did not-elect to disaffirm for more than two years after he knew the release did’not contain what “he thought it did.” The defendant should have had the general affirmative charge, and for the error of the court in refusing to give this charge, and without passing on any other questions, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

1

Reported in full in the Southern Reporter; re- * ported as a memorandum decision without opinion in 194 Ala. 390.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 So. 222, 18 Ala. App. 525, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/payne-v-coleman-alactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack