Hale v. Brown

This is the second appeal, 211 Ala. 106, 109, 99 So. 645.

The assignments of error are predicated on the action of the trial court in allowing the plaintiff to testify that he requested Mr. Hale to sue the Eulenwiders, and this was declined. In this there was no error. It was competent with evidence tending to show that the commissions were earned and that this action of the broker voluntarily prevented him from recovering for the joint benefit of himself and the appellee, as such agent — that is to say, appellant, defendant, having defended upon his failure to recover the commissions from H.…