Case ID: ala_181/html/0320-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SOMERVILLE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Phalin v. Dearman.
    
      Bill for an Accounting.
    
    (Decided April 24, 1913.
    61 South. 941.)
    
      Account; Equitable Action for; Mutuality. — Where there are mutual accounts between parties, either' may resort to equity for a statement of the account, and to ascertain and recover any balance due regardless of whether there is a confusion or complication in the account, and whether or not complainant claims a balance due him.
    Appeal from Tuscaloosa County Court.
    Heard before Hon. Henry B. Poster.
    Bill by L. H. Dearman against G. W. Phalin, for an accounting. From a decree overruling demurrers to the bill respondents appeal.
    Affirmed.
    Jones & Pearsons, for appellant.
    Counsel discuss the bill and insist that it was subject to the demurrers interposed, but they cite no authority in support of their contention.
    G. B. Worthen, and R. C. Sparks, for appellee.
    Counsel discuss the errors assigned with the insistence that the court properly overruled the demurrers to the bill, but they cite no authority in support of their contention.
   SOMERVILLE, J.

The allegations of the bill of complaint show the existence of mutual accounts between complainant and respondent. In such cases either party may resort to equity for a statement of the accounts and the ascertainment and recovery of any balance due, without regard to the question of confusion or complication. — Kirkman v. Vanlier, 7 Ala. 217; Hulsey v. Walker County, 147 Ala. 501, 40 South. 311; Crichton v. Hayles, 176 Ala. 223, 57 South. 696, collecting the authorities.

It is immaterial, of course, that the bill does not claim a balance in favor'of complainant, for he is as much entitled to thus ascertain his indebtedness to respondent as to fix respondent’s indebtedness to him. The demurrers to the bill were properly overruled, and the decree will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Dowdell, O. J., not sitting.