Wagner v. Simmons & Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court. Tried before Hon. H. T. TOULMIN. The appellees, as assignees of LeBaron & Son, brought suit against Louis Wagner and Charles Bawls, late partners under the style of Wagner & Bawls, upon an account due LeBaron & Son, and also to recover the amount due upon a draft drawn on the 14th day of October, 1874, by Wagner & Bawls on L. P. Wagner, payable to the order of LeBaron & Son, for one thousand dollars, -which Wagner refused to accept, and…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court. Tried before Hon. H. T. TOULMIN. The appellees, as assignees of LeBaron & Son, brought suit against Louis Wagner and Charles Bawls, late partners under the style of Wagner & Bawls, upon an account due LeBaron & Son, and also to recover the amount due upon a draft drawn on the 14th day of October, 1874, by Wagner & Bawls on L. P. Wagner, payable to the order of LeBaron & Son, for one thousand dollars, -which Wagner refused to accept, and which was duly protested, &e. Bawls was not served, and there was a discontinuance as to him. Wagner filed his sworn plea of…
1Opinion of the CourtBrickell, C. J.
The general rule, that a rebutting examination should be confined to the matter of the cross-examination, is not inflexible. Its application, rests largely in the discretion of the presiding judge, with the exercise of which appellate tribunals are reluctant to interfere, unless it is apparent injury has been suffered by the party complaining. We do not perceive that the appellant could have been injured by the mere repetition by the witness in rebuttal, of the facts stated by him in his original examination. The court may also in its discretion, permit a party to propound a leading question…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Crosby v. HutchinsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
- Hollingsworth v. ChapmanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
- Hurt v. ClarkeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1876