Case ID: ala-app_17/html/0112-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BRICKEN,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(82 South. 560)
    SOUTHERN COTTON OIL CO. v. HOWLE et al.
    (5 Div. 290.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    July 21, 1919.)
    Trial <3=»143— Questions for Juey — Conflicting Evidence.
    Trial court did not err-in refusing the affirmative charge, where there was a sharp conflict in the evidence on the issues involved.' ■
    (gr^Por other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Elmore County; Leon McCord, Judge.
    Suit by the Southern Cotton Oil Company against B. T. Howie and J. Z. Moore for breach of warranty as to title to a certain carload of cotton seed. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    The facts in the case seem to be that the plaintiffs received by freight a carload of cotton seed for which they paid $30 pefi ton, and that these seed were consigned to them at Electic, Ala., to be delivered at Union Springs, where they were delivered; the dispute arising over the fact as to whether the defendants in this suit were purchasing as agents of the defendants or whether the defendants here bought straight out from Graham and consigned the seed to plaintiff as sellers of the seed, and as to these matters the evidence was in sharp conflict. In the meantime, and after the seed were delivered and paid for, Ross Barton, Jr., brought suit in the circuit court of Tallapoosa county against both the plaintiff and defendants in this suit for the conversion of the particular carload of cotton seed involved here and recovered a judgment against both the plaintiff and defendant in this suit, which the plaintiffs in this suit have paid under execution in the hands of the shferiff, and for which they now seek recovery against the defendant.
    Barnes & Walker,' of Opelika, Steiner, Crum & Weil, of Montgomery, and J. M. Holley, of Wetumpka, for appellant.
    George F. Smoot, of Wetumpka, for appellees.
   BRICKEN,

J. On this appeal the rulings of the court in refusing the affirmative charge requested in writing by the appellant (plaintiff in the court below), and the overruling of plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, are assigned as error.

A careful examination of the entire record and all the evidence (which was in sharp conflict upon the issues involved) clearly shows that the court did not err in refusing the affirmative charge requested by plaintiff. We are also of the opinion that there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

' No error appearing in the record, the judgment of the circuit court will be affirmed.

Affirmed.