Polytinsky v. Stewart
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from Morgan Circuit Court. Heard before Hon. D. W. Speake. Suit' on verified account by S. É. Stewart against Abraham Polytin'-kv. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. This was an action for work and labor done by a partnership composed of Ober & Holmes, for ginning cotton, with an allegation that, the account had been transferred and assigned to plaintiff. The fact of its verification was indorsed on the complaint.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Morgan Circuit Court. Heard before Hon. D. W. Speake. Suit' on verified account by S. É. Stewart against Abraham Polytin'-kv. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. This was an action for work and labor done by a partnership composed of Ober & Holmes, for ginning cotton, with an allegation that, the account had been transferred and assigned to plaintiff. The fact of its verification was indorsed on the complaint. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. The account as itemized is as follows: A. Polytinsky, ITartselle, Alabama, in account with Obar &…
1Opinion of the CourtAnderson, J.
Conceding that the account offered Avas not so itemized or verrified as to become self-proving, under section 1804 of the Code of 1896, there Avas proof sufficient to authorize its going to the jury. The witness Obar testified that the “items of indebtedness as appearing in the account were taken from a statement given to Avitness by the bookkeeper of the defendant, Polytinskv, and that the account Avas furnished by the bookkeeper at defendant’s request.” This evidence was clearly sufficient, as an admission by the defendant, to render the account admissible. The fact that he changed the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Monroe v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1895
3Cited by2 opinions
- Real Coal, Inc. v. Thompson Tractor Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1980
- Duck Brand Co. v. DouglassAlabama Court of Appeals · 1918