Peyton v. Apex Realty Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Peyton v. Apex Realty Co.

123 So. 898, 220 Ala. 81, 1929 Ala. LEXIS 380

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 27, 1929

Docket6 Div. 416.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 So. 898 (Peyton v. Apex Realty Co.) 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

Peyton v. Apex Realty Co., 123 So. 898, 220 Ala. 81, 1929 Ala. LEXIS 380 (Ala. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

ANDERSON, C. J.

While the bill of exceptions recites that it contains all the evidence, it affirmatively appears that several written documents were introduced in evidence, but which have" been omitted from the record, and these instruments may have justified the trial court in giving the general charge for the plaintiff. Brown v. Sutton, 210 Ala. 245, 97 So. 738. Especially is there foundation for such a presumption from the contract of purchase between the appellant and the purchaser of the property, and which may have provided that appellant was to pay the broker’s commission, and which seems to be borne out by the objections to the evidence and the ruling of the court ou same.

As the trial court was justified in giving the general charge for the plaintiff it is unnecessary to consider the action in giving- or refusing the other written charges or the *82 exception to the oral charge, even if it was so reserved as to permit us to review same, which is questionable. Birmingham R. R. v. Rutledge, 142 Ala. 195, 39 So. 338.

The court cannot pass intelligently on the objections to the documentary evidence, as said documents are not set out in the bill of exceptions, and presumptively they were admissible.

The judgment of the circuit -court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.

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

ANDERSON, C. J.

While the bill of exceptions recites that it contains all the evidence, it affirmatively appears that several written documents were introduced in evidence, but which have" been omitted from the record, and these instruments may have justified the trial court in giving the general charge for the plaintiff. Brown v. Sutton, 210 Ala. 245, 97 So. 738. Especially is there foundation for such a presumption from the contract of purchase between the appellant and the purchaser of the property, and which may have provided that appellant was to pay the broker’s commission, and which seems to be borne out by the objections to the evidence and the ruling of the court ou same.

As the trial court was justified in giving the general charge for the plaintiff it is unnecessary to consider the action in giving- or refusing the other written charges or the *82 exception to the oral charge, even if it was so reserved as to permit us to review same, which is questionable. Birmingham R. R. v. Rutledge, 142 Ala. 195, 39 So. 338.

The court cannot pass intelligently on the objections to the documentary evidence, as said documents are not set out in the bill of exceptions, and presumptively they were admissible.

The judgment of the circuit -court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 So. 898, 220 Ala. 81, 1929 Ala. LEXIS 380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peyton-v-apex-realty-co-ala-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack