From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davis v. Webster Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama
Apr 13, 1922
92 So. 901 (Ala. 1922)

Opinion

8 Div. 441.

April 13, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; O. Kyle, Judge.

Spragins Speake, of Huntsville, for appellant.

The account was not an account stated. 1 C. J. 680. The statute as to a verified account is without application, where plaintiff appears to prove his account. 1 C. J. 664. The defendant was not liable under the facts. 205 Ala. 615, 88 So. 873.

Lanier Pride, of Huntsville, for appellee.

Under the evidence the court properly found a judgment for the plaintiff. 3 Ala. 564; 13 Ala. 570; 66 Ala. 570; 2 C. J. 488; 21 R. C. L. 111.


While the evidence does not show that this appellant authorized Nichols to purchase the lumber for her from the appellee, the plaintiff's evidence tends to show that she received and accepted the lumber with the knowledge that the credit for same was extended to her, and not Nichols, and, if this was true, the appellant was liable for same. Woodward Iron Co. v. Dabney, 205 Ala. 615, 88 So. 873; Ala. West. R. R. v. Bush, 182 Ala. 113, 62 So. 89; McFarland v. Dawson, 128 Ala. 561, 29 So. 327.

It is true the defendant denied the plaintiff's evidence as to the foregoing facts, but the evidence was ore tenus, and the trial court saw and heard the witnesses, and its conclusion is like unto the verdict of a jury, and will not be disturbed by this court, unless contrary to the great weight of the evidence. We do not think that the conclusion was contrary to the great weight of the evidence, and the judgment is affirmed. Finney v. Studebaker Co., 196 Ala. 423, 72 So. 54; Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403, 72 So. 52.

Affirmed.

McCLELLAN, SOMERVILLE, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Davis v. Webster Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama
Apr 13, 1922
92 So. 901 (Ala. 1922)
Case details for

Davis v. Webster Lumber Co.

Case Details

Full title:DAVIS v. WEBSTER LUMBER CO

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Apr 13, 1922

Citations

92 So. 901 (Ala. 1922)
92 So. 901

Citing Cases

Smith v. City of Dothan

The finding of the chancellor has the weight of a verdict, and should not be disturbed, unless contrary to…

BIRMINGHAM TRUSSVILLE IRON CO. v. AL TITLE T. CO

Moore v. Brewer, 94 Ga. 260, 21 S.E. 460; Supreme Court Rule 45. The only thing necessary to make out a prima…