Case ID: ala-app_1/html/0593-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.-", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Taylor v. White & Awbrey.
    
      Assumpsit.
    
    (Decided May 30, 1911.
    56 South. 2.)
    1. Evidence; Admissions; Infancy. — Where the action was assumpsit and the defense was infancy, it was competent to prove certain statements made by the defendant to plaintiff before the making of the contract sued on, that the defendant was more than twenty-one years old. ,
    2. Infants; Action; Plea; Directing Verdict. — Where the admissions of defendant offered in evidence tended to rebut his plea of infancy, the defendant was not entitled to have the verdict directed for him.
    Appeal from Kandolph Circuit Court.
    Hearyl before Hon. S. L. Brewer.
    Assumpsit by White ■& Awbrey against W. G. Taylor. Judgment for plaintiffs and defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    B. E. Taylor, for appellant.
    The court erred in admitting evidence that the defendant said to the plaintiffs before making the contract sued on that he was twenty-one years old, as the defendant could not be boun d by any declaration made while a minor. — 59 Ala. 441; 51 Ala. 377; 86 Ala. 442; 71 Ala. 248; 124 Ala. 574. The defendant was entitled to the affirmative charge because the evidence as to minority was undisputed.
    R. J. Hooten, for appellee.
    Defendant was estopped from pleading minority after having made the statement that he was over twenty-one years old. — 11 A. & E. Enc. of Law, 387; 14 Ala. 377; 37 Ala. 346; 11 Ala. 324; 76 Ala. 194; 107 Ala. 562. Declarations against interest are always admissible. — 11 A. & E. Enc. of Law, 1108; Jones on Evi. 824. The admissions made by the defendant raised such a conflict in the evidence as to require its submission to the jury.
   PER CURIAM.-

Under the defendant’s plea of infancy, on which issue was joined, it was competent to prove statements made by the defendant to the plaintiffs, prior to his entering into the contract sued on, that he, the defendant, was over 21 years of age. The cour(t committed no error in overruling defendant’s motion to exclude the evidence.

This evidence being in, the general charge, requested by the defendant on the issue under the plea of infancy, was properly refused.

These are the only questions presented on the record, and, no error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Note. — The above opinion was prepared by Chief Justice Dowdell, of the Supreme Court, before the transfer of the case to this court, and is adopted by this court.