Bates v. Birmingham Paint & Glass Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the City Court of Birmingham. Tried before the Hon. Wm. W. Wilkerson. The assignment of errors by appellant (defendant in court below) is based on the refusal of the court to give charges numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4. Charge 1 was the affirmative charge in favor of defendant. . Charge 2 was. the statute of’frauds.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the City Court of Birmingham. Tried before the Hon. Wm. W. Wilkerson. The assignment of errors by appellant (defendant in court below) is based on the refusal of the court to give charges numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4. Charge 1 was the affirmative charge in favor of defendant. . Charge 2 was. the statute of’frauds. Charge 3 was as follows): “I charge you, gentlement of the jury, that if you believe from the evidence in this cause that the plaintiff extended any credit to anyone else than the defendant, then you cannot find against the defendant in this action.” Charge 4: “If the jury…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCLELLAN, C. J.
There Avas evidence adduced on the trial tending to sIioav that I. B. Bates, the husband of the defendant, Mrs. Marie A. Bates, Avas her agent in respect of having her house painted, and that as such agent he made the contract with Hogan for the work ancl! material, and agreed Avitli the plaintiff to retain out of the money he was to pay Hogan enough to pay plaintiff’s bill for paints and oil sold to Hogan and used in the work, and that Avlien Hogan completed the work according to the contract he would pay plaintiff’s said bill.
Hogan assented to this arrangement and, as the evidence further…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Beitman v. Birmingham Paint & Glass Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1914
- Hacker v. Whitney Dam Lumber & Construction Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1949
- Lackland v. TurnerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1921
- Braswell v. MaloneSupreme Court of Alabama · 1955
- Park-Robertson Hardware Co. v. CopelandAlabama Court of Appeals · 1914
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.