Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

70 Ala. 419

Wheless v. Rhodes

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1881

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1881-12-15

Tried before the Hon. James E. Cobb. This action was brought by Joseph W. Rhodes, against John Wlieless, to recover a set of mechanic’s tools, particularly described in the complaint, with damages for their detention; and was commenced on the 5th June, 1874.

Relies on Herring v. Skaggs · Mobile Life Ins. v. Walker · Morrison v. Judge

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1881-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 1925

12 state decisions

4018811890190019101920decided

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 →

STONE, J.

¶1In this case, certain payments were shown to have been made by Rhodes to Wheless, in February, 1874. Wheless testified, that Rhodes had rented lands from him as the agent of Hollingsworth, and had cultivated them during the year 1873. Pie further testified, that part of the money so paid to him was paid and applied in liquidation of Rhodes’ indebtedness to Hollingsworth for said rent. There had been other indebtedness from Rhodes to Wheless, and the contention was, on which of these claims the payment should be applied. If applied to the claim for rent, the implications are, that this would leave an unpaid balance due on the mortgage from *421Rhodes to Wheless. The plaintiff, Rhodes, was allowed to testify, against the objection and exception of the defendant, “ that he did not intend to pay the rent of the Hollingsworth place, but intended to have the amount appropriated by the defendant as a payment of the mortgage to Wheless.” In this, the Circuit Court erred. In a contest such as this, which includes inquiry into the character, intent, motive, and purpose of the parties to the suit, neither party will be allowed to testify as a witness to any secret or uncommunicated intention or purpose, he may have had when he did the act. Facts may be laid before the jury, and verbal or written intercommunications are facts. Declarations made, attending acts, and explanatory of them, are facts. But uncommunicated intentions are not the subject of proof. The jury must ascertain these from the facts and circumstances.—Mobile Life Ins. Co. v. Walker, 58 Ala. 290; Sternau v. Marks, Ib. 608; Herring v. Skaggs, 62 Ala. 180.

¶2The Circuit Court did not err in receiving evidence of the usury. It tended to show the actual debt was less than the papers imported. The mortgage being of chattels, if the mortgage debt was paid, the mortgagee’s title was at an end. Where there is no debt, there is no mortgage.—Harrison v. Hicks, 1 Por. 423; Morrison v. Judge, 14 Ala. 182; Geron, v. Geron, 15 Ala. 558. This rule does not obtain, in courts of law, as to lands.

¶3The charges asked are not shown to have been in writing, and we can not consider them.

¶4Reversed and remanded.

/70/ala/419 · .json · Public domain