B. Smith, Judge. Action by the , Saxon China Company against the Tea Java Coffee Company and others. Judgment for plaintiff and defendants appeal. The complaint declared upon the common counts, and upon a trade acceptance drawn on the 12th day of December, 1919, presented to and accepted by the defendant, payable to the order of the China Saxon Company, 90 days after date.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1921-12-22
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently September 1970
15 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.
¶1
It is at least questionable as to whether or not the brief of appellants’ counsel so complies with rule 10 (61 South, vii) as to authorize a review of all or any of the assignments of error. It is sufficient to observe, however, that an examination and consideration of same fails to disclose reversible error on the part of the trial court.
¶2
[1]
So much of the statements or arguments' of appellee’s counsel which seems to have been objectionable to appellants was
*34
provoked or produced by the improper statements or remarks of their counsel. Hanners v. State, 147 Ala. 27, 41 South. 973.
¶3
[2]
As to whether or not Frick relied on the representation of plaintiff’s agent was a question for the jury, to be gathered from the facts and circumstances, and the trial court did not err in not permitting said Erick to testify as to his secret or uncommunicated motive, reason, intent, or purpose.
¶4
[•3]
As to whether or not some of the china had been returned by some of the defendants’ customers in and of itself was not proper, as it was but the act of third persons,n and, from aught that appears, it may have been returned for causes other than the defect relied upon by the defendants.
¶5
[4]
Nor was there error in not letting Erick testify that he made the test or experiment after the china, or some of it, had been returned, as this was but an indirect effort to get in evidence which had already been properly excluded.
¶6
Moreover the defendants, in effect, got the benefit of this evidence, as Frick was permitted to testify that he made a test of the china “a little after the first complaints were made.”
