Wheless v. Rhodes

Supreme Court of Alabama

Wheless v. Rhodes

70 Ala. 419

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedDecember 15, 1881

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 70 Ala. 419 (Wheless v. Rhodes) 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

Wheless v. Rhodes, 70 Ala. 419 (Ala. 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

STONE, J.

In this case, certain payments were shown to have been made by Rhodes to Wheless, in February, 1874. Wheless testified, that Rhodes had rented lands from him as the agent of Hollingsworth, and had cultivated them during the year 1873. Pie further testified, that part of the money so paid to him was paid and applied in liquidation of Rhodes’ indebtedness to Hollingsworth for said rent. There had been other indebtedness from Rhodes to Wheless, and the contention was, on which of these claims the payment should be applied. If applied to the claim for rent, the implications are, that this would leave an unpaid balance due on the mortgage from [421]*421Rhodes to Wheless. The plaintiff, Rhodes, was allowed to testify, against the objection and exception of the defendant, “ that he did not intend to pay the rent of the Hollingsworth place, but intended to have the amount appropriated by the defendant as a payment of the mortgage to Wheless.” In this, the Circuit Court erred. In a contest such as this, which includes inquiry into the character, intent, motive, and purpose of the parties to the suit, neither party will be allowed to testify as a witness to any secret or uncommunicated intention or purpose, he may have had when he did the act. Facts may be laid before the jury, and verbal or written intercommunications are facts. Declarations made, attending acts, and explanatory of them, are facts. But uncommunicated intentions are not the subject of proof. The jury must ascertain these from the facts and circumstances.—Mobile Life Ins. Co. v. Walker, 58 Ala. 290; Sternau v. Marks, Ib. 608; Herring v. Skaggs, 62 Ala. 180.

The Circuit Court did not err in receiving evidence of the usury. It tended to show the actual debt was less than the papers imported. The mortgage being of chattels, if the mortgage debt was paid, the mortgagee’s title was at an end. Where there is no debt, there is no mortgage.—Harrison v. Hicks, 1 Por. 423; Morrison v. Judge, 14 Ala. 182; Geron, v. Geron, 15 Ala. 558. This rule does not obtain, in courts of law, as to lands.

The charges asked are not shown to have been in writing, and we can not consider them.

Reversed and remanded.

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

STONE, J.

In this case, certain payments were shown to have been made by Rhodes to Wheless, in February, 1874. Wheless testified, that Rhodes had rented lands from him as the agent of Hollingsworth, and had cultivated them during the year 1873. Pie further testified, that part of the money so paid to him was paid and applied in liquidation of Rhodes’ indebtedness to Hollingsworth for said rent. There had been other indebtedness from Rhodes to Wheless, and the contention was, on which of these claims the payment should be applied. If applied to the claim for rent, the implications are, that this would leave an unpaid balance due on the mortgage from [421]*421Rhodes to Wheless. The plaintiff, Rhodes, was allowed to testify, against the objection and exception of the defendant, “ that he did not intend to pay the rent of the Hollingsworth place, but intended to have the amount appropriated by the defendant as a payment of the mortgage to Wheless.” In this, the Circuit Court erred. In a contest such as this, which includes inquiry into the character, intent, motive, and purpose of the parties to the suit, neither party will be allowed to testify as a witness to any secret or uncommunicated intention or purpose, he may have had when he did the act. Facts may be laid before the jury, and verbal or written intercommunications are facts. Declarations made, attending acts, and explanatory of them, are facts. But uncommunicated intentions are not the subject of proof. The jury must ascertain these from the facts and circumstances.—Mobile Life Ins. Co. v. Walker, 58 Ala. 290; Sternau v. Marks, Ib. 608; Herring v. Skaggs, 62 Ala. 180.

The Circuit Court did not err in receiving evidence of the usury. It tended to show the actual debt was less than the papers imported. The mortgage being of chattels, if the mortgage debt was paid, the mortgagee’s title was at an end. Where there is no debt, there is no mortgage.—Harrison v. Hicks, 1 Por. 423; Morrison v. Judge, 14 Ala. 182; Geron, v. Geron, 15 Ala. 558. This rule does not obtain, in courts of law, as to lands.

The charges asked are not shown to have been in writing, and we can not consider them.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 Ala. 419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wheless-v-rhodes-ala-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack