Price Williams & Sons v. McConnico
This text of 44 Ala. 627 (Price Williams & Sons v. McConnico) 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.
Opinion
B. F. SAFFOLD, J.
If the citation to the garnishee, (Revised Code, § 89M), ought to contain an accurate description of the capacity in which the plaintiff sues, the error objected to is amendable, the record being right in every other part, and- can not be presented for the first time in this court, after appearance in the court below.— Rev. Code, §§ 2809, 2810, 2811; Moore & Lyons v. Stainton, 22 Ala. 831; Daniel v. Hopper, 6 Ala. 296; Smith v. Chapman 6 Porter, 365.
Without proof of some contract or usage of trade, that commission merchants are merely depositaries, and not liable for interest until demand made and default, the court can not know that a commission merchant is not chargeable with interest on a balance in his hands in favor of the principal.
The judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
44 Ala. 627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/price-williams-sons-v-mcconnico-ala-1870.