Union Fertilizer Co. v. Johnson

Supreme Court of Alabama

Union Fertilizer Co. v. Johnson

43 So. 752, 150 Ala. 159, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 419

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedApril 20, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 43 So. 752 (Union Fertilizer Co. v. Johnson) 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

Union Fertilizer Co. v. Johnson, 43 So. 752, 150 Ala. 159, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 419 (Ala. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

DENSON, J.

The complaint counts for recovery on “a bond or bill single,” alleged in the complaint to [161]*161have been “executed by the defendants and oné Joe Wester, who is not sued, on the 20th day of January, 1902, and payable to the plaintiff as follows: $250 in 30 days after the date thereof, and $371.66 on November 1, 1902, after date thereof.” It needs no argumentation, nor citation of authority, to show that the instrument offered in evidence in support of the complaint materially varies from the allegations of the complaint. There is a fatal variance. The instrument offered does not support the complaint. Upon this consideration, and without regard to any other question that may be presented by the Mil of exceptions, the court- properly gave the affirmative charge, with hypothesis, as requested by the defendants.—Phillips v. Americus Guano Co., 110 Ala. 521, 18 South. 104; Davis v. McWhorter, 122 Ala. 570, 26 South. 119.

The -bill of exceptions shows affirmatively that the plaintiff had the benefit, on the trial of the matters set up in its replications, to which demurrers were sustained. Therefore no injury resulted to .the plaintiff from the ruling of the court on the demurrers, even if the ruling Avas erroneous, which we do not decide. The result is an affirmance of the judgment of the lower court.

Affirmed.

Tyson, C. J., and Haralson and Simpson, JJ., concur.

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

DENSON, J.

The complaint counts for recovery on “a bond or bill single,” alleged in the complaint to [161]*161have been “executed by the defendants and oné Joe Wester, who is not sued, on the 20th day of January, 1902, and payable to the plaintiff as follows: $250 in 30 days after the date thereof, and $371.66 on November 1, 1902, after date thereof.” It needs no argumentation, nor citation of authority, to show that the instrument offered in evidence in support of the complaint materially varies from the allegations of the complaint. There is a fatal variance. The instrument offered does not support the complaint. Upon this consideration, and without regard to any other question that may be presented by the Mil of exceptions, the court- properly gave the affirmative charge, with hypothesis, as requested by the defendants.—Phillips v. Americus Guano Co., 110 Ala. 521, 18 South. 104; Davis v. McWhorter, 122 Ala. 570, 26 South. 119.

The -bill of exceptions shows affirmatively that the plaintiff had the benefit, on the trial of the matters set up in its replications, to which demurrers were sustained. Therefore no injury resulted to .the plaintiff from the ruling of the court on the demurrers, even if the ruling Avas erroneous, which we do not decide. The result is an affirmance of the judgment of the lower court.

Affirmed.

Tyson, C. J., and Haralson and Simpson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 So. 752, 150 Ala. 159, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-fertilizer-co-v-johnson-ala-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack