From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

GRANADE v. ZORN

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Oct 7, 1930
130 So. 167 (Ala. Crim. App. 1930)

Opinion

1 Div. 909.

October 7, 1930.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Washington County; T. J. Bedsole, Judge.

Action by J. J. Zorn against James N. Granade and G. L. Ferguson. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Granade Granade and Joe M. Pelham, Jr., all of Chatom, for appellant.

The interests of the Washington Gin Warehouse Company were vitally at stake, and its intervention should have been allowed. Code 1923, § 9485; Awbrey v. Estes, 216 Ala. 66, 112 So. 529. It was error to refuse evidence of the damages sustained by said company. Bell v. Reynolds, 78 Ala. 511, 56 Am. Rep. 52; Alabama Chem. Co. v. Geiss, 143 Ala. 591, 39 So. 255.

Dozier Gray, of Mobile, and R. S. Hill, Jr., of Montgomery, for appellee.

If there was error in refusing the petition for intervention, appellants are not the aggrieved parties and cannot be heard to complain.


Appellee sued appellants for an amount alleged to be due him by them on account of the sale by appellee to appellants of certain gin machinery. The case was tried before the court, sitting without a jury.

Few questions are presented which merit a discussion by us.

Whatever may be said of the trial court's ruling by which he denied the petition of the Washington Gin Warehouse Company, a corporation, to intervene under the provisions of Code 1923, § 9485 — and, on the face of the pleadings, we are not disposed to criticize said ruling — it clearly appears that appellants are not in position to complain of same.

So, of the rulings by which appellants were denied the right to introduce evidence tending to show the damages suffered by said Washington Gin Warehouse Company, who had purchased said machinery from appellants, and paid for same, paying appellants a handsome profit, by reason of being delayed in ginning cotton, etc.

The issues in the case were simple, and the testimony was allowed to take an ample range. As stated, the case was tried before the court, sitting without a jury, and, after a full examination of the points argued by appellants, we are not persuaded that any error intervened during the trial which was prejudicial to their rights. It is therefore our opinion that the judgment rendered by the court in appellee's favor should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

GRANADE v. ZORN

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Oct 7, 1930
130 So. 167 (Ala. Crim. App. 1930)
Case details for

GRANADE v. ZORN

Case Details

Full title:James N. GRANADE et al. v. J. J. ZORN

Court:Court of Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Oct 7, 1930

Citations

130 So. 167 (Ala. Crim. App. 1930)
24 Ala. App. 72