Case ID: stew_1/html/0499-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "JUDGE CRENSHAW", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Garrow v. Salles.
    A. by a written order requests B. to deliver goods to C. This is not presumptive evidence that A. was indebted to C., the order not purporting to be for value received.
    This was an action of -assumpsit in Mobile Circuit Court, by Garrow against Salles, for the price of a quantity of lumber. The plaintiff proved that he had lumber in the hands of one Kennedy, and that he had drawn an order for it in favor of the defendant, and that the defendant had received it under this order. The quantity of lumber received and its value was proved. The order was In writing, but was not produced. The defendant requested the Court to instruct the jury, that the drawing of the order was presumptive evidence of indebtedness from the plaintiff to the defendant, to the amount of the lumber therein mentioned; and that, therefore, on this proof tbe plaintiff could not recover. And tbe Court so charged the jury. Verdict for the defendant.
    This charge is assigned by Garrow as error.
    
      f Acre, for the plaintiff in error.
    Hitchcock, for the defendant.
   JUDGE CRENSHAW

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We are of opinion, that an order requesting the delivery of lumber or other specific article, and not purporting to have been for value received, or not containing any acknowledgement of a debt, is not even presumptive evidence of an indebtedness of the drawer to the payee or holder of the order. We think that on the evidence as presented by the bill of exceptions, the plaintiff ought to have recovered the value of the lumber received of him through Kennedy by the defendant.

The judgement is reversed and the cause remanded.

The Chiee Justice not sitting.