Opinion ID: 1841190
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Tillery Judgment

Text: The Joneses allege that they never contracted with Tillery to pay for the carpet installed in the house, and that Tillery dealt only with Hargrove. Therefore, they assert that the trial court erred in entering the judgment against them, which was entered jointly against Hargrove in favor of Tillery in the amount of $2,021.60. Tillery's claims were apparently based upon recovery for work and labor done and open account, and this Court assumes that the trial court found that Tillery was entitled to recover on those theories. The trial court heard the evidence without a jury and its findings based upon that evidence are presumed correct in the absence of palpable error. First Alabama Bank v. Coker, 408 So.2d 510 (Ala.1982). James Tillery testified at trial: A. They [the Joneses] were within the price range and when I give a price well then they seemed like it was satisfactory with them. As far as telling them they were, I didn't quote them a price, I just said they were within their price range. And then at that point I wanted to know before we went any further who was going to pay for it. Q. Did you ask Mr. Jones that? A. Yes, sir, I did. And at this time he said that Hargrove and Azalea Building. I said well I didn't know a thing about Hargrove and Azalea Building. I don't know them. But I said on the basis of himand he was a policeman, I said on the basis of you and you being married to a LaPorte and you're local I said I'll go ahead and order the material for you. Q. Did he say anything about how you were to get paid? A. He told me the same afternoon, the 7th or 8th, that afternoon, that he would guarantee my money and that he would bring by an affidavit and get me to sign it showing that I had received my money before he closed the house out. . . . . Q. Who did he say was going to pay you? A. He never didhe guaranteed it and I never did ask him. I was looking to Mr. Jones. Q. Did you ever talk to Mr. Hargrove at all? A. No, sir. . . . . Q. So he [Jones] could either pay that to the contractor who would pay you or he could buy the carpet himself and pay you? A. Right. Just so I got my money that was it. And I was looking to Jones for it. I was dealing directly with Jones. This evidence was sufficient to support a finding by the trial court that the Joneses were obligated to Tillery on an account. Accordingly, the trial court's judgment is due to be affirmed.