Opinion ID: 1097037
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Interrogatories to W. E. Grubbs

Text: The court correctly refused to require answer to interrogatories 11 and 12. The questions seek information as of the time when the interrogatories were propounded and not as of January 28, 1950, when the alleged arrest was made. The fact, if true, that some of the equipment of the defendant W. E. Grubbs bore the name Good Housekeeping Appliance Company at the time the interrogatories were propounded would not be admissible to show that this concern had any interest in the equipment on January 28, 1950. If the idea is to predicate liability on a master and servant relationship between the parties it is necessary to show such relationship at the time and in respect to the very transaction out of which the injury arose. Powers v. Williamson, 189 Ala. 600, 66 So. 585; Perfection Mattress & Spring Co. v. Windham, 236 Ala. 239, 182 So. 6; 57 C.J.S., Master and Servant, § 562, page 273. The answer to interrogatory 13 is sufficient. It shows that the payment was a leasing arrangement and not a division of profits and losses. In respect to interrogatory 15 the answer is sufficient with reference to J. C. Beech, but the question should be answered as to the other alleged associates. The time is fixed in January, 1950. If a partnership relationship prior to the 28th is shown on which liability might be predicated, that relationship would be presumed to continue to the 28th, nothing to the contrary appearing. Guin v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 197 Ala. 117, 72 So. 413; Patterson v. Mobile Steel Co., 202 Ala. 471, 80 So. 855; Letson v. Hall, 1 Ala. App. 619, 55 So. 944. As to interrogatories 18 and 19 it is sufficient to say as to the time involved what we have said with reference to interrogatories 11 and 12. In interrogatory 22 the first two questions call for testimony relating to a present situation, that is who pays at the present time for equipment previously operated in January 1950. The last question, however, should be fully answered. We think interrogatory 26 should be answered. Interrogatory No. 27 is too general and would require information as to matters subsequent to January 28, 1950. It is sufficient to say as to interrogatory 29 that the plaintiff would have as much knowledge relating thereto as the defendant W. E. Grubbs would have. As to interrogatory 34 it is sufficient to say that it calls for an explanation of the mental process of the defendant W. E. Grubbs. Interrogatories to J. C. Beech. Interrogatories 27 and 28 are too general in nature. These questions also relate to the present and not to matters as of January 28, 1950. Interrogatory 31 has been answered. It denies a sharing of profits and losses such as would indicate a partnership or joint adventure arrangement. Answer to interrogatory 38 was properly refused. See Ex parte Wood, supra. Interrogatory 39 is too general and is not limited to the issues in this case. It is sufficient to say as to interrogatory 41 that the plaintiff would have as much knowledge relating thereto as the defendant J. C. Beech. Interrogatory 42 is fully answered. While a yes or no answer was not given, the facts are stated according to the version of J. C. Beech. Interrogatory 46 calls for testimony of a mental process and should not be answered. The court correctly refused to require answer to interrogatory 49. It is too general in nature, not limited to any time whatever in the future or in the past or in any capacity as to whether defendant appeared as attorney, witness, claim agent involving an isolated transaction at some remote, indefinite and unconnected time. If the defendant should answer the question in the affirmative, then such answer would lead into side issues and away from the issues involved in this case. Interrogatories to Good Housekeeping Appliance Co. Interrogatory 2 was sufficiently answered. Interrogatory 5 should be answered. As has been pointed out, if there was a partnership relationship between the parties prior to January 28, 1950, the date of the alleged arrest, then there will be a presumption that such relationship continued to the time of the trial, nothing to the contrary appearing. The court ruled correctly in not requiring answer to interrogatory 6. This called for testimony as to a present situation and not for testimony as of the time of the alleged unlawful arrest. The court ruled correctly in not requiring answer to interrogatory 8 because of its prejudicial tendencies and irrelevancy. Interrogatories to Mrs. W. E. Grubbs. Both interrogatories 6 and 22 were sufficiently answered. It results that as to the several interrogatories hereinabove pointed out which should have been answered, the court was in error, and to that extent the writ of mandamus will issue as prayed. Writ awarded. FOSTER, LAWSON and SIMPSON, JJ., concur.