Court Opinion

ID: 9824807
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:28:48.221876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:08.172668
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
[6] At the request of the appellee, the statement of facts is extended so as to include the following:
“The plaintiff testified that the mule was no account after he got sick, and that he delivered him to Abraham and never got anything for him.”
The case of Tombigbee Valley R. Co. v. Still, 6 Ala. App. 472, 60 South. 546, is a different case from the case at bar. In that case, the court said:
“The evidence afforded a clear inference from which the jury could find that the extent of the injury suffered, and for which the defendant [plaintiff] had a right to recover, was the value of the animal, and not necessarily * * * only such an amount as the value of the animal before being struck, less her value after being struck * * * and before being killed by the section foreman”
—while in this case there is nothing to take it out of the rule as laid'down in Herring v. Skaggs, cited in the opinion.
It js contended by appellee’s counsel that the testimony of the plaintiff that the mule was “no account after he got sick” was equivalent to saying that the mule was of no value at the time of the sale. We cannot agree to this. The word “account” has no clearly defined meaning. Words and Phrases, vol. 1, p. 50. The word is flexible in meaning, depending somewhat on the surrounding circumstances an'd the connection in which it is used. Words and Phrases, vol. 1, p. 50. The expression “no account” is a provincialism, and in this section has no such fixed meaning as that a jury would be warranted in saying that it is synonymous with “no market value.”
The application for rehearing is overruled.
Application overruled.