The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-10-30

plaintiff $1.00 per foot for said boring and drilling through the dirt until rock was struck. and after that $2.00 per foot. and the breach assigned Is that the plaintiff bored or drilled for the defendant the said we'll. to the depth of ninety-five feet. three feet which was through dirt. and .ninety-two feet of which was through rock and other substance, and that the defendant had failed and refused to pay for same. such count is not subject to demurrer upon the grounds that it does not set out the contract in words and figures. or that 1t does not show that the plaintiff procured water in such we'll
 2. Contract for services ' fendered; charge in reference 'r thereto.--In an action to recover for services rendered. charge asserted correct proposi. tion of law and is correctly given. whed there Is proof of facts tending to sup port 1t, which instructs the jury that. Where in the absence of an express contract valuable services are render- ed by one person or another. which are knowingly accepted. the law will pre- sume an obligation. to pay therefor what they are reasonably worth"
 g.. Action for, breach of contract for boring q well: charge in reference thereto--In an action to recover
 
 for the boring Of ( wei where the breach complained of is that the defen- dant did not pay plaintim for the bor- ing of said well, and there is evidence tending to show after, the well was bored, quite . depth.s and water was not found, that thereupon. at the, de- fendantts suggestion. tthe plaintiff bored another we'll and obtained wat CT, where the court instructs the jury | nnf that the defendant ever received any benefit from the first we'll, which was the well involved in the suit. 1t Is not error for the court, upon the request of the plaintiff, to instruct the jury that Tt makes no difference whether the defendant received any benefit from the first well or not. if defendant consented expressly or fmpliedly that plaintiff should bore the second yell" 1. Charge of court to jury; not erro- neous for emitting the words from the evidence."--In the trial of civil case. a charge which instructs the jury that eff you believe that the defendant" &c., is not faulty. because it omits the words from the evidence" after the word "beIieve."
 5. Pleading and practice count for money paid by defendants request; charge in reference thereto.-Where one or the several counts or a conn plaint in a civil action to recover mon- ey alleged to have been paid by plain tiff for defendant, at his request. if there is no evidence that plaintiff ever paid money for the defendant, or that he had ever requested him to do so. the court should at the request of the defendant, instruct the jury that they should find for the defendant upon said count.
 6. Action for breach of contract for boring well; charge of court to jury. In an action to recover damages for the breach of contract in the boring of a we'll in that the defendant failed to pay the plaintiff for the boring of said well in accordance with the con- tract which provided that he was to pay S1.00 per foot for boring through dirt until the rock was struck, and af- ter that $2.00 per foot for the remaining number of feet that plaintiff might bore, and the evidence introduced for the plaintiff tended to show the num- Der of feet of dirt which he bored be- fore he struck rock, and also the num- Der of feet he bored through rock and other substance, charges requested by the defendant which predicate the plaintiffs right of recovery, upon the jury ascertaining from the evidence how many feet plaintiff bored through rock and how many feet he bored through other substance are erroneous and properly refused.
 Reversed and remanded.
 Opinion by Haralson, J.