Craft v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co.

36 Citing cases

  1. Fish Market Restaurants, Inc. v. Riverfront, LLC

    129 So. 3d 1008 (Ala. 2013)   Cited 6 times
    Agreeing with Riverfront's argument that Tuscaloosa County is not a “seriously inconvenient” forum

    In support of its argument, Fish Market relies upon Ray v. Alabama Central Credit Union, 472 So.2d 1012, 1014 (Ala.1985), in which this Court stated: “The Court addressed the issue of what constitutes an accord and satisfaction in the case of Craft v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 220 Ala. 6, 123 So. 271 (1929), stating:“ ‘The discharge of claims by way of accord and satisfaction is dependent upon contract express or implied; and it follows that the essentials necessary to valid contracts generally must be present in a contract of accord and satisfaction. Therefore there must be (1) a proper subject-matter, (2) competent parties, (3) an assent or meeting of the minds of the parties, and (4) a consideration.

  2. Rainey v. State

    245 Ala. 458 (Ala. 1944)   Cited 54 times

    On certiorari to the Court of Appeals this court will not review findings of fact by that court. As to review of application of law to the facts, there is conflict of authority. Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Minderhout, 195 Ala. 420, 71 So. 89; Wilson v. State, 241 Ala. 528, 3 So.2d 139; Milazzo v. State, 238 Ala. 241, 189 So. 907; Rochester-Hall Drug Co. v. Bowden, 218 Ala. 242, 118 So. 674; Craft v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 220 Ala. 6, 123 So. 271. A holding by Court of Appeals that verdict was contrary to preponderance of evidence is not reviewable. Clayton v. State, 244 Ala. 10, 13 So.2d 420; Box v. Metropolitan L. I. Co., 232 Ala. 447, 168 So. 220; Tortomasi v. State, 238 Ala. 253, 189 So. 905. There was no such summarization of facts in this case as will authorize a review. However, the application of the law to the facts was undoubtedly correct.

  3. National Bread Co. v. Bird

    145 So. 462 (Ala. 1933)   Cited 19 times

    An attorney has authority by virtue of his employment as such to do in behalf of his client all, in or out of court, necessary or incidental to the prosecution and management of the suit and which affects the remedy only, but has no power to compromise or release the cause of action itself. Senn v. Joseph, 106 Ala. 454, 17 So. 543; Louisville N. R. Co. v. Bridgeforth, 20 Ala. App. 326, 101 So. 807; Blackwood v. Maryland Cas. Co., 24 Ala. App. 527, 137 So. 467; Craft v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 220 Ala. 6, 123 So. 271; Indemnity Co. v. Bollas, 223 Ala. 239, 135 So. 174; Storey v. U.S. F. G. Co., 32 Idaho, 388, 183 P. 990, 991; Tobler v. Nevitt, 45 Colo. 231, 100 P. 416, 132 Am. St. Rep. 142, 16 Ann. Cas. 925, 23 L.R.A. (N.S.) 702 note; Gibson v. Nelson, 111 Minn. 183, 126 N.W. 731, 137 Am. St. Rep. 549, 31 L.R.A. (N.S.) 523 note; Pomeroy v. Prescott, 106 Me. 401, 76 A. 898, 138 Am. St. Rep. 347, 21 Ann. Cas. 574 note; Dwight v. Hazlett, 107 W. Va. 192, 147 S.E. 877, 66 A.L.R. 102, note; Moulton v. Bowker, 115 Mass. 36, 15 Am. Rep. 72; Bigler v. Toy, 68 Iowa, 687, 28 N.W. 17; 1 Thornton, Attorneys at Law, § 215. All who deal with an attorney must ascertain the extent of his authority. Robinson v. Murphy, 69 Ala. 543; Gullett v. Lewis, 3 Stew. (Ala.) 23.

  4. Trammell v. Robinson

    34 Ala. App. 91 (Ala. Crim. App. 1948)   Cited 12 times

    In order to be good, pleas in recoupment must relate to the same transaction as that laid in the original suit. Code 1940, Tit. 7, § 357; Craft v. Standard Accident Ins. Co., 220 Ala. 6, 123 So. 271; Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co. v. Murphy, 226 Ala. 226, 146 So. 387; Martin v. Brown, Shipley Co., 75 Ala. 442; Carolina-Portland Cement Co. v. Alabama Const. Co., 162 Ala. 380, 50 So. 332; Grisham v. Bodman, 111 Ala. 194, 20 So. 514; Washington v. Timberlake, 74 Ala. 259; Tidmore v. Mills, 33 Ala. App. 243, 32 So.2d 769; Id., 249 Ala. 648, 32 So.2d 782; Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. Benson Hardware Co., 225 Ala. 412, 143 So. 570. A plea in recoupment must contain the same averments which would make it a good complaint, if the claim sought to be set off or recouped were a suit brought thereon in the first instance. J. C. Lysle Milling Co. v. North Alabama Grocery Co., 201 Ala. 222, 77 So. 748; Alabama Power Co. v. Kendrick, 219 Ala. 692, 123 So. 215, 216; Lawton v. Ricketts, 104 Ala. 430, 16 So. 59. Plea 6 was fatally defective in that it does not allege the work and labor was done for appellant, that it was done by appellee or that it was done at appellant's request.

  5. National Surety Co. v. George E. Breece Lumber

    60 F.2d 847 (10th Cir. 1932)   Cited 17 times
    Interpreting New Mexico surety law

    This definition has been judicially approved in the following cases: People v. Rose, 174 Ill. 310, 51 N.E. 246, 44 L.R.A. 124; People ex rel. Gosling v. Potts, 264 Ill. 522, 106 N.E. 524; American Surety Co. v. Folk, 124 Tenn. 139, 135 S.W. 778, Ann. Cas. 1912d 1024. See, also, Craft v. Standard Accident Ins. Co., 220 Ala. 6, 123 So. 271; Hare Chase v. National Surety Co. (D.C.N.Y.) 49 F.2d 447, 453. Under the terms of the bond in the instant case, Cooper and Otey agreed to indemnify the lumber company against loss resulting from their failure to carry out the terms of such paragraph 15, and the surety company agreed to pay such indemnity in the event of default therein by Cooper and Otey.

  6. Golden v. Bank of Tallassee

    639 So. 2d 1366 (Ala. 1994)   Cited 6 times

    Ala. Code 1975, § 8-1-22. In addition, a meeting of the minds of the parties is necessary to prove that an accord has been reached and a satisfaction has been made. Ray v. Alabama Central Credit Union, 472 So.2d 1012 (Ala. 1985), citing Craft v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 220 Ala. 6, 123 So. 271 (1929). Golden did not present substantial evidence that the Bank released him from the promissory note that he originally signed in March 1987 and renewed in November 1987. The evidence indicates that Golden willingly signed the $150,000 note, which clearly provided that Golden would remain liable on the note even if another person purported to assume the note.

  7. Waide v. Tractor and Equipment Co.

    545 So. 2d 1327 (Ala. 1989)   Cited 5 times
    In Waide v. Tractor Equipment Co., 545 So.2d 1327 (Ala. 1989), after the trial court had entered a summary judgment in favor of Tractor and Equipment Company ("the company"), Waide appealed, arguing that an accord and satisfaction had been established.

    We agree. "The Court addressed the issue of what constitutes an accord and satisfaction in the case of Craft v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 220 Ala. 6, 123 So. 271 (1929), stating: " 'The discharge of claims by way of accord and satisfaction is dependent upon contract express or implied; and it follows that the essentials necessary to valid contracts generally must be present in a contract of accord and satisfaction. Therefore there must be (1) a proper subject-matter, (2) competent parties, (3) an assent or meeting of the minds of the parties, and (4) a consideration.

  8. Bank Independent v. Byars

    538 So. 2d 432 (Ala. 1988)   Cited 10 times
    In Bank Independent, we stated that the filing of a notice of appeal while one of the alternative motions is pending constitutes a withdrawal of that motion.

    It follows, then, that in order for there to be a valid accord and satisfaction, there must be 1) proper subject matter; 2) competent parties; 3) assent or meeting of the minds; and 4) consideration. Farmers Merchants Bank of Centre v. Hancock, 506 So.2d 305, 310 (Ala. 1987); Austin v. Cox, 492 So.2d 1021 (Ala. 1986); Ray v. Alabama Central Credit Union, 472 So.2d 1012 (Ala. 1985); Craft v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 220 Ala. 6, 123 So. 271 (1929). There is no question that a contract to extinguish a debt embraces proper subject matter, see Farmers Merchants Bank of Centre v. Hancock, supra, nor is it disputed that the parties here involved are competent.

  9. Sharp Electronics Corp. v. Shaw

    524 So. 2d 586 (Ala. 1987)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Shaw, Sharp Electronics Corporation ("Sharp") filed an action against Stanleigh Shaw to collect a debt on copiers it had sold to Shaw that Shaw allegedly had not paid for.

    "Section 10179, Code, does not enlarge the class of claims which may be pleaded in recoupment. To support a plea in recoupment, the defendant must claim damages, either for the breach by plaintiff of the contract sued on, or of some duty which the law imposes by virtue of such contract. Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. Benson Hardware Co., 225 Ala. 412, 143 So. 570; Craft v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 220 Ala. 6, 123 So. 271. "The plea claims for the deceit of plaintiff in procuring money by false representations relating to an entirely different contract from that here involved.

  10. Farmers Merchants Bank of Centre v. Hancock

    506 So. 2d 305 (Ala. 1987)   Cited 23 times
    Ordering remittitur and upholding the jury verdict as to one count and reversing as to an inconsistent verdict on another count

    "A. Didn't promise him anything." The elements of accord and satisfaction are set forth in Ray v. Alabama Central Credit Union, 472 So.2d 1012, 1014 (Ala. 1985), quoting from Craft v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 220 Ala. 6, 123 So. 271 (1929): "The discharge of claims by way of accord and satisfaction is dependent upon contract express or implied; and it follows that the essentials necessary to valid contracts generally must be present in a contract of accord and satisfaction.