Liddell v. Chidester
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court. Tried before Hon. John P. Hubbard. The facts appear in the opinion. The charges given at request of plaintiff Chidester and excepted to by Liddell were as follows: 1. If the jury believe all the evidence, they must find a verdict for the plaintiff. 2. “If the jury believe the evidence, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover the balance due under said contract for each month, or part of a month thereof, from the first day of August,…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court. Tried before Hon. John P. Hubbard. The facts appear in the opinion. The charges given at request of plaintiff Chidester and excepted to by Liddell were as follows: 1. If the jury believe all the evidence, they must find a verdict for the plaintiff. 2. “If the jury believe the evidence, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover the balance due under said contract for each month, or part of a month thereof, from the first day of August, 1885, at the contract price until the end of the contract year, which was February 29th, 1886, with interest thereon from…
1Opinion of the Court
STONE, O. J.
The most important inquiry in this case, alike of law and of • fact, was whether Ohidester was employed by Liddell to perform a year’s service for one thou, sand dollars to be paid in gross, or to be paid in monthly in*' stallments. If the former, then the recovery and enforce-' meht of the judgment for a part of the demand in June, 1886, is a complete defense and bar to this action, and nothing should be recovered. This, under the well known principle, that a plaintiff can not split up a single cause of action into two or more suits; and if he does so, and recovers a part of his…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Gardner v. BuckbeeNew York Supreme Court · 1824
- Strauss v. MeertiefSupreme Court of Alabama · 1879
- Chamberlain v. GaillardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1855
- Commercial Fire Insurance v. Capital City InsuranceSupreme Court of Alabama · 1886
- Rake's Adm'r v. PopeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1844
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Dalton v. American Ammonia Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
- Crowder v. Red Mountain Mining Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1899
- City of Anniston v. DouglasSupreme Court of Alabama · 1948
- Dollins & Adams v. Pollock & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1889
- McNeil v. Ritter Dental Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1925
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.