The Birmingham age-herald., 1910-09-16

question:
 BY J. H. M'LAURIN
 President Southern Wholesale GrOcers' Association
 q am very much gratified at Judge Grubb's action in this matter. although I cannot truthfuly state that the result os this litigation has come as a surprise to me. I have lived in very close touch to this question since its inception and studied very thoroughly all of the al- legged actions of the organization, and was satisfied that when the matter came to be clearly and fully understood, both by the court and the public in general. the wholesale grocers of the south would not be made to appear in the light Of men who were conspiring to injure or deal unjustly with their fellow men, Throughout the entire hearing of this case I have been greatly impressed with the splendid manner in which MT. Forney Johnston, MT. Clabaugh's attorney, has handled the matter. I feel that he made splendid fight for his client, and con- sidering the material in hand with which to argue the case, the showing that he made was most creditable. MT. Johnsto1 fought fair and above board throughout the case, and as for my part he has won my admiration both as a lawyer and a gentleman"
 
 we'll recognized principle of law that where two parties are jointly responsible to a third party for one wrong, while that third party, the wronged party can sue either or both and get judgments against either or both, he can get but one satisfaction for the same wrong. Otherwise you can readily see he would be getting paid twice. So If he has been paid by one wrong-doer his full dam- ages, then he has no right to look to the other wrong-doer for any damages, even though that wrong-doer was jointly re- sponsible with the one who pays.
 Sued in State Court
 "In this case the plaintiff, MT. Cla- baugh, sued in the state court MT. James A. VanHoose, who was president of the association, which is now defendant in this court, alleging that these same acts of interference which broke up his busf- ness, as he claims, were done by MT. Van Hoose as president of this same asso- citation. Of course you can readily see if the president did them he would be liable personally, because he could not do wrong for his principal and not be responsible for that wrong himself. Therefore, he would be responsible, and he would also make his principal respon- sible, if he acted within the scope of his authority as president. Therefore, It may be said for the sake of argument, that both of them were responsible for the wrongs that have been charged in the state court In the suit against MT. Van Hoose, which, as I construe 1t. are the same exactly as MT. Clabaugh here sues for and for which he asks damages against the Southern Wholesale Grocers' association. Now, after the suit had been brought In the state court, and after there had been a trial, which resulted in a disagreement of the jury, MT. Cla- baugh and MT. VanHoose came to an agreement which is represented by the documents which have been presented here to settle that case. This agreement provided for the payment of $10,00O by MT. VanHoose, stipulating that if all the money was not paid by certain date. a Judgment should be entered for that amount Tn the ClTCult COuIt, Jury DSii6 waived Had that Judgment been ren- dered according to agreement 1t would have been a full satisfaction of the wrongs complained of in that case. The agreement providing for that method Of remedy, I think 1t is fair construction of the agreement that the parties 1n- tended in settling the case to settle MT Clabaugh's full damages against MT VanHoose-the full damages for the in oIIa in fha Cnpnnlaint against MT. VanHoose. Giving the agreement that construction. MT. Clabaugh had no right to sue anybody else, even though he attempted to reserve that right in his agreement with MT. VanHoose, because having once been paid in full for his damages he had not the legal right to make any agreement which would give him a right to sue any other person for the same damages, upon the idea that man cannot recover twice for the same damages; and that if one wrong-doer nays him in full he has no right to look to the other, even though he seeks to reserve that right in the agreement with the party who pays. Tn this case the agreement of settlement was in writing and 1t is the duty of the court to con strue it. The court construes 1t as con- stituting an accord and satisfaction of the damages Mir Clabaugh claimed In the VanHoose suit In the circuit court. That being true the law makes the same agree ment and It's full performance by MT. VanHoose a full accord and satisfaction of the cause of action sued on by Mir. Clabaugh against the association in this case Therefore, I charge you that the plea is made out by the undisputed evil dence, the document in the case.
 Payment of Costs
 .sIt Is true MT. Clabaugh said he did not agree that the costs paid him by Mir yanHoose were the full costs. but I think he cannot be heard to say this after he took the check and paid the clerk and the clerk received 1t without objection, and he made no further de- mand until after this trial was entered upop. I think he Is to be treated as hay ing accepted that as performance of the agreement, whether 1t was full perform ance or not. So, charge you. gentlemen of the Jury. that your verdict in this case should be for the defendant, on the idea that the cause of action, conceding it ex- isted has been settled by MT. Clabaugh's s receipt of ten thousand dollars from MT. vanHoose. which I construe to have been received by him in full satisfaction of the damages he claimed in the suit