W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Jordan

Alabama Court of Appeals

W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Jordan

116 So. 302, 22 Ala. App. 395, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 86

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 27, 1928

Docket1 Div. 688.

StatusPublished

This text of 116 So. 302 (W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Jordan) 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

W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Jordan, 116 So. 302, 22 Ala. App. 395, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 86 (Ala. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

This was a suit by appellant against appellees as guarantors on a contract made between appellant and one W. T. Jordan. Prom a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff brings this appeal.

The court did commit error in overruling appellant’s demurrers to plea 2 of appellee Coats. But this error was fully and completely cured by the action of the court in later specifically charging the jury to disregard said plea and to return a verdict in favor of appellant against'Coats, if it found the principal, W. T. Jordan, indebted to appellant in any sum.

Upon the authority of the opinion of this court in W. T. Rawleigh, etc., Co. v. Hooks et al., 16 Ala. App. 394, 78 So. 310, it would seem, and we hold, that there was no error in this case in sustaining appellees’ objections to the introduction in evidence of the so-called “semiannual approval of the account” against W. T. Jordan, made by the said W. T. Jordan. According to the authority we have just cited, it was res inter alios acta, and not binding upon these appellees. See, also, Graves et al. v. Ætna Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., 215 Ala. 250, 110 So. 390.

What we have said seems to dispose of the only two assignments of error that could, in the most liberal view, be said to be argued and insisted upon in brief. The other assignments, not being so treated, are waived.

Finding no error of a prejudicial nature, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

RICE, J.

This was a suit by appellant against appellees as guarantors on a contract made between appellant and one W. T. Jordan. Prom a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff brings this appeal.

The court did commit error in overruling appellant’s demurrers to plea 2 of appellee Coats. But this error was fully and completely cured by the action of the court in later specifically charging the jury to disregard said plea and to return a verdict in favor of appellant against'Coats, if it found the principal, W. T. Jordan, indebted to appellant in any sum.

Upon the authority of the opinion of this court in W. T. Rawleigh, etc., Co. v. Hooks et al., 16 Ala. App. 394, 78 So. 310, it would seem, and we hold, that there was no error in this case in sustaining appellees’ objections to the introduction in evidence of the so-called “semiannual approval of the account” against W. T. Jordan, made by the said W. T. Jordan. According to the authority we have just cited, it was res inter alios acta, and not binding upon these appellees. See, also, Graves et al. v. Ætna Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., 215 Ala. 250, 110 So. 390.

What we have said seems to dispose of the only two assignments of error that could, in the most liberal view, be said to be argued and insisted upon in brief. The other assignments, not being so treated, are waived.

Finding no error of a prejudicial nature, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 So. 302, 22 Ala. App. 395, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/w-t-rawleigh-co-v-jordan-alactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack