Elbersole v. Daniel
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from Birmingham City Court. Heard before Hox. Charles A. Hexx. Action by Daniels against Ebersole. The nature and character of the action together with the facts in the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Birmingham City Court. Heard before Hox. Charles A. Hexx. Action by Daniels against Ebersole. The nature and character of the action together with the facts in the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. Defendant having proven his plea, was entitled to verdict. — Medies v. Reynolds, 117 Ala. 413; Gerald, v. Tun stall, 109 Ala. 567. Plaintiff could not split up his cause of action which had no other foundation than the brick and sand sold and delivered, the entire amount- being due when the suits were brought. — Liddell v. Chidester, 84 Ala. 508; R. R. Go. v.…
1Opinion of the CourtWeakley, C. J.
Daniel sued Ebersole on the common counts for a sum of money claimed to be owing for deliveries of brick and sand. The amount claimed was the aggregate of all the items of the account running-through a series of months, without regard to payments made or to a note for $100, which the defendant had given the plaintiff on account. The defendant first filed two pleas — the general issue, and a plea setting up that defendant had paid plaintiff on account, “first, a note for $100, on which plaintiff has instituted suit in this court for a balance due thereon of $60,” and also “that defendant had…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- South & North Alabama Railroad v. Henlein & BarrSupreme Court of Alabama · 1876
- Liddell v. ChidesterSupreme Court of Alabama · 1887
- Givens v. RogersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1847
3Cited by4 opinions
- McNeil v. Ritter Dental Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1925
- Gravette v. Allen Graphite Co.Alabama Court of Appeals · 1911
- Lehman-Durr Co. v. FolmarSupreme Court of Alabama · 1907
- Johnson v. PrinevilleOregon Supreme Court · 1921