Case ID: ala_50/html/0081-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "B. F. SAFFOLD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Shulman, Goetter & Weil v. Brantley & Copeland.
    
      Action on Account for Goods sold.
    
    
      Burden ofproof on plea of payment. —When the plea of payment is interposed, in an action on an open account, the burden of proof is on the defendant; and if the evidence on that point is equally balanced, the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Pike.
    Tried before the Hon. J. McCaleb Wiley.
    Jno. D. Gardner, for appellants.
    Parks & Hubbard, contra.
    
   B. F. SAFFOLD, J.

The appellants sued the appellees on an open account, and issue was joined, on the pleas of non assumpsit and payment. The evidence tended to prove and to disprove payment. The court refused to give the following charge, asked by the plaintiffs in writing: “If the jury are reasonably satisfied, from the evidence, that the account sued upon is correct, then the burden is on the defendants to prove payment, if they rely on that plea; and they are authorized to look to all of the evidence on this point, and if it is evenly balanced between the plaintiffs and the defendants, they must find for the plaintiffs.”

The charge ought to have been given. Lindsey v. Perry, 1 Ala. 203; Harris v. Bell, 27 Ala. 520; Jarrell v. Lillie, 40 Ala. 271.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.