Williams v. Midgley

Supreme Court of Alabama

Williams v. Midgley

92 So. 454, 207 Ala. 269, 1922 Ala. LEXIS 54

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedApril 6, 1922

Docket7 Div. 290.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 92 So. 454 (Williams v. Midgley) 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

Williams v. Midgley, 92 So. 454, 207 Ala. 269, 1922 Ala. LEXIS 54 (Ala. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

McOLELLAN, J.

Action by appellee against appellant on account for goods, etc., sold and delivered by appellee at appellant’s request. The appellant denied liability on the ground that none of the commodity, gasoline, was bought by appellant or sold on the written order of appellant; that being the appellant’s limiting instruction to appellee in respect of sales on defendant’s account. On the other hand, appellee’s evidence went to show that appellant gave appellee instruction and authority to sell to one King and, of course, to appellant direct; and that the bill was made up of sales and deliveries so made. The court, trying the case without jury and favored with the opportunity to hear and observe the witnesses, resolved the contested issues for plaintiff, appellee. A review of the whole evidence does not convince this court that error affected this conclusion of the trial court. It cannot be affirmed that the finding was plainly contrary to the great weight of the evidence. Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403, 72 South. 52; Finney v. Studebaker Corp., 196 Ala. 422, 72 South. 54, among others.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

McOLELLAN, J.

Action by appellee against appellant on account for goods, etc., sold and delivered by appellee at appellant’s request. The appellant denied liability on the ground that none of the commodity, gasoline, was bought by appellant or sold on the written order of appellant; that being the appellant’s limiting instruction to appellee in respect of sales on defendant’s account. On the other hand, appellee’s evidence went to show that appellant gave appellee instruction and authority to sell to one King and, of course, to appellant direct; and that the bill was made up of sales and deliveries so made. The court, trying the case without jury and favored with the opportunity to hear and observe the witnesses, resolved the contested issues for plaintiff, appellee. A review of the whole evidence does not convince this court that error affected this conclusion of the trial court. It cannot be affirmed that the finding was plainly contrary to the great weight of the evidence. Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403, 72 South. 52; Finney v. Studebaker Corp., 196 Ala. 422, 72 South. 54, among others.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 So. 454, 207 Ala. 269, 1922 Ala. LEXIS 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-midgley-ala-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack