DocketNumber: 5 Div. 918.
Citation Numbers: 106 So. 858, 214 Ala. 204
Judges: THOMAS, J.
Filed Date: 11/27/1925
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/11/2023
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 206 The suit is on common counts against defendants as parties doing business under a firm name and style. Defendants pleaded the general issue and that denying the partnership existence.
The liability of partners for the contracts of the partnership and that imposed on one held out as a partner was the subject of extended discussion in Eggleston v. Wilson,
There was no error in permitting Carter's statements to plaintiff's witness, Golson, as to who composed the partnership — that Mizell was interested and a partner. The excerpt of the partnership agreement of the company recorded in the county of Coosa was furnished Carter by Mizell, and was recorded at his request or with his permission; the same was known to Golson at the time of and prior to the extending of the credit for which suit is brought. There are further tendencies of evidence to the effect that Carter stated to Golson that appellant was a partner; that appellant, having been sued as *Page 208
partner in another case, settled the same before trial was concluded by verdict; the failure of appellant to deny that he gave permission to Carter to have the excerpt of the contract showing the partnership relations recorded in the county and community where the credit was extended; and that appellant told Golson that said Turpentine Company had to have credit for merchandise, and he thought same would be paid. The foregoing made a jury question as to imposed liability as a partner and indicates there was no error in admitting the evidence in question. Contradictory tendencies of evidence are for the jury. Affirmative charges requested were properly refused under the special plea denying liability for the debts and obligations of that company. Jones v. Bell,
The case was given to the jury on the question of fact whether or not Mizell was liable because he knowingly permitted himself to be held out as a partner. And the ruling on evidence will be considered in that light. There was no error in ruling as to evidence of the suit of Coosa County Turpentine Company against defendant under the general grounds of objection assigned, as the court is not required to seek proper objection as to the admissibility of evidence. Lester v. Jacobs,
The appellant had offered, through the witness, Carter, a letter by Coosa County Turpentine Company to the Ark-Ala Lumber Company. He cannot therefore complain that Carter was permitted to explain that that company was threatening suit against the Turpentine Company for damages to the timber under the contract provision. The question now challenged was within the res gestæ of the writing of the letter. L. N. R. R. Co. v. Quinn,
There was no variance in allegata and probata. The complaint described as the partners Carter and Mizell. The fact that the evidence showed another partner is immaterial. Any or all of them may be sued. Rabitte v. Orr Bros.,
Given charges Nos. 4 and 5, for plaintiff, under the evidence, were in accord with the decisions adverted to in Eggleston v. Wilson,
The evidence showed that the Turpentine Company was such a commercial enterprise as, in the conduct of its business or operations, must have groceries, etc., for which the credit was extended. Charges 13 and 14 pretermitted the question of fact as to whether the Turpentine Company was or was not a "commercial concern." Charge 14 was incorrect in its implication to the jury that, in order for plaintiff to recover, the articles purchased must be such as customarily used in the operation of a turpentine business, when liability of parties may be predicated on knowledge, or holding out, that goods were being generally purchased and charged to the partnership. Lewis v. Isbell Nat. Bank,
Charge 2 was refused properly as unduly singling out a part of the evidence. Alabama Power Co. v. Goodwin (Ala. Sup.)
Charge 11 unduly restricts the operation of the effect of the recorded agreement. It is sufficient that plaintiff know its contents or legal effect, though not directed thereto by Mizell or by Carter — it was evidence tending to show a holding out generally as a partner with the knowledge and consent of Mizell.
We have examined the evidence in the record, and find no reversible error.
The judgment is affirmed.
ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.