Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

180 Ala. 556

Friddle v. Braun

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided February 14, 1913

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1913-02-14

Heard, before Hon. C. C. Nesmiti-i. Assumpsit by James A. Friddle against Louis Braun. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Count 6 is as follows: “Plaintiff claims of defendant, to Avit, $3,000, for the breach of a contract made on, to wit, the 14th day of September, 1910, which contract is set out in the first count of this complaint, and is referred to therein and made a part of this count, the same as if fully set out in this count.

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 1928

4 state decisions

Relies on Highland Avenue & Belt Railroad v. Dusenberry · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Cofer

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · Decided 1913-02-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

ANDERSON, J.

¶1In count 6, the plaintiff joined separate and independent actions, and this is forbidden, notwithstanding he might have set out each of them in the same complaint by separate and distinct counts. The trial court did not err in sustaining the defendant’s demurrers to this count.—H. A. R. R. v. Dusenberry, 94 Ala. 413, 10 South. 274; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Cofer, 110 Ala. 491, 18 South. 110.

¶2Count 2, sets up a breach of contract, not only as to additions and calculations relating to the inventory, but charges that the inventory was incorrect upon many other grounds, yet the special plea thereto merely sets up a new agreement covering errors in calculation and addition as to the items appearing on said inventory. It does not include items improperly put on the inventory or improperly valued. Nor does it set up a waiver, on the part of the plaintiff, as to all breaches arising upon the contract sued upon, by the execution of the new contract set up in said special plea, or a merger. This plea, as found on page 24 of the record, was filed as to count 5 also; and, while it may be questionable as to whether or not the demurrer was specific enough to it as an answer to count 5, it was defective as to said count 5 as well as 2, and the demurrer to it, as addressed to count 2, should have been sustained.

¶3Count 7 is manifestly bad. It neither avers a false or fraudulent misrepresentation of the condition of the *563paper cutter, nor that defendant falsely or fraudulently concealed its defective condition. From aught that appears from the count, the condition of the paper cutter was known to the plaintiff when he made the trade.

¶4Counts 3 and i are the common counts for money had and received, and the special plea thereto denies owing the plaintiff anything, except a certain sum due upon a contract therein set out, and tenders the amount admitted to be due. The trial court did not err in overruling the demurrer to this plea.

¶5We find no reversible error in the rulings upon the evidence.

¶6For the error pointed out, the judgment of the city court must be reversed, and the cause is remanded.

¶7Reversed and remanded.

Dowdell, C. J., and Mayfield and de Graffenried, J.J., concur.
/180/ala/556 · .json · Public domain