Oil Well Supply Co. v. West Huntsville C. M. Co.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
ANDERSON, C. J.—
(1-4) While the order was written upon the letter head of the West Huntsville Cotton Mill Company and signed by Pratt as president, the order was not signed by said West Huntsville Company, or by Pratt as president of said company, and the only thing to indicate that the order was for said company was the use of its stationery and the fact that Pratt was president of said company, and this was not conclusive that the order was for the said West Huntsville Company. There was proof that there was a New York & Alabama Oil Company of which Pratt was president, that the appellant had previous dealings with this company, and had in fact received notice, prior to the shipment of the articles here involved, that they were ordered by and for the New York & Alabama Oil Company. Therefore it was a question for the jury as to whether or not the order was sent in for the appellee or the New York & Alabama *503 Oil Company, and whether or not the appellant knew that the goods were ordered for and intended to be used by said New York & Alabama Company. The trial court did not err in admitting the letters and telegrams covering the transaction. The letter of November 10, 1911, from the appellant to Pratt as president of the New York & Alabama Company related to other goods, and no way tended to show that the present order was for said New York & Alabama Company, but it was admissible, in connection with the other evidence, to show that appellant knew of both companies, and knew that Pratt was president of both of them. The letter of November 13, 1911, signed by Pratt as president of the New York & Alabama Company, was properly admitted in evidence, as it was a question for the jury as to whether or not appellant received it before the shipment of the goods, and whether or not it put it on notice that the goods were being purchased for the New York & Alabama Company or the West Huntsville Company. While the second count was .upon an order given by the defendant, we do not think that the defendant was precluded from denying the order without a verified plea, as the order did not purport to be signed by the defendant, or by any one for it.
(5, 6) We think, however, that the trial court erred in the rulings as to the first count, as there was plenty of evidence from which the jury could infer that the appellant made the sale to the appellee, and from which the jury could also infer that Pratt knew that the sale was intended to be made to the appellee, and not the New York & Alabama Company, and if he, as president of both companies, received the goods which he knew were intended for appellee and turned them over to the New York & Alabama Company the appellee would be liable for his act, and upon an account for goods sold, notwithstanding the order, when made by Pratt, was intended for the New York & Alabama Company. Nor do we think that the letter from Pratt of November 13th, signed as president of the New York & Alabama Company, was conclusive of the fact that the order there referred to was for said New York & Alabama Company. Moreover, it was a question for the jury as to whether or not the appellant received it before the shipment of the 15th, or if it had time to cancel the same.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Mayfield, Somerville, and Thomas, JJ., concur.
On Rehearing
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
*504 UPON REHEARING.
ANDERSON, C. J.
(7) In reversing this case because of so much of the oral charge, which practically eliminated count 1 from the case, the fact was not suggested in brief, and was not noticed by the court, that the record does not affirmatively disclose that the exception to the said oral charge was taken in open court, in the presence of the jury and before the jury retired. Therefore the action of the court in this respect cannot be con sidered. —Carter v. Tenn. Co., 180 Ala. 367 , 61 South. 65 , and cases there cited. The rehearing is granted, the judgment of reversal set aside, and the case is affirmed.
Mayfield, Somerville, and Thomas, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.