Ex Parte Farrow

Decided February 2, 1922

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1922-02-02

Court of Appeals. Petition by John T. Farrow for certiora-ri to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment of said court affirming the appeal of John T. Farrow v. Thomas S. Burns, 18 Ala. App. 350, 92 South. 236. The action is to recover on a quantum meruit for services which were contracted for under the contract rendered void by the statute of frauds.

Relies on Eddins v. Galloway Coal Co. · Rainey v. Capps · Smith v. Pritchett

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Writ denied · Decided 1922-02-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently May 1965

19 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SOMERVILLE, J.

¶1 Where the terms of an invalid contract embrace recitals in the nature of admissions of fact, such recitals may be offered in evidence as admissions, in any action between the parties not grounded on the contract (as here, in an action for the value of services performed and accepted), in so far as they are relevant to the issues of the case.

¶2 This is in no sense an enforcement of the obligations of the contract, and the rule of admissibility must be regarded as well settled in this state. Smith v. Pritchett, 98 Ala. 649, 652, 13 South. 569; Eddins v. Galloway Coal Co., 205 Ala. 361, 87 South. 557; Rainey v. Capps, 22 Ala. 288, 292.

¶3 We find no error in the ruling of the Court of Appeals, and the writ of certiorari will be denied.

¶4 Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLELLAN and THOMAS, JJ„ concur.