White Trunk & Bag Co. v. Brantley

Alabama Court of Appeals

White Trunk & Bag Co. v. Brantley

75 So. 182, 16 Ala. App. 37, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 108

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 17, 1917

Docket1 Div. 223.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 75 So. 182 (White Trunk & Bag Co. v. Brantley) 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

White Trunk & Bag Co. v. Brantley, 75 So. 182, 16 Ala. App. 37, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 108 (Ala. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, P. J.

[1, 2] The copy of the letter offered by the plaintiff purporting to have been signed by M. E. Brantley was not competent evidence, unless the defendant M. E. Brantley wrote the letter or authorized it to be written; and any statement by George Brantley with reference to the letter was likewise incompetent, unless such statement was made in the presence of M. E. Brantley and not disputed by him. Rowlan v. State, 14 Ala. App. 17, 70 South. 953.

[3] The record recites that;

“Plaintiff asked the court in writing to give the following charge; ‘The court charges the jury that if they believe the evidence they must find for defendant.’ The court wrote upon it given and signed the same.”

The appellant, having invoked this action of the court, is estopped to complain of the results flowing therefrom. Day v. State (Sup.) 74 South. 352 ; 1 Tygh v. Dolan, 95 Ala, 271, 10 South. 837; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Holland, 173 Ala. 675, 55 South. 1001; Travis v. Sheffield S. & I. Co., 162 Ala. 605, 50 South. 1083.

Affirmed.

1

199 Ala. 278.

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