Smith v. Flagg
46 Ala. 624
Opinion
In a suit for damages for the breach of a warranty of a horse, the testimony of a witness, who was one of the plaintiffs, that his co-plaintiff and partner told him on his return home with the horse which he had purchased, that the defendant had warranted him to be sound, the defendant not being present, is inadmissible, because it is mere hearsay relating to a past transaction. Martin vs. Hardesty, 27 Ala. 458.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Smith v. Flagg, 46 Ala. 624 (Ala. 1871).
46 Ala. 624 (Smith v. Flagg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Thompson v. Wilson
63 So. 2d 695 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1953)
Gay & Bruce v. Citizens' Nat. Bank
110 So. 19 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1926)
Espalla v. Richard & Sons
94 Ala. 159 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1891)