Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

72 Ala. 409

Winter v. Banks

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1882

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1882-12-15

Heard before the Hon. JohN A. FosteR. The original bill in this case was filed on the 29th January, 1880, by Thomas Banks, against John Gindrat Winter; and sought to enforce an alleged vendor’s lien on a tract of land, for a balance of the purchase-money due by the terms of the written contract between the parties.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““ * * * On appeal from a decree of the chancellor, overruling exceptions to the report of the register on questions and matters of account dependent upon the conclusions drawn by the register from evidence produced before him, all reasonable presumptions are indulged to support his rulings, and they will not be disturbed 'unless shown to be clearly wrong * * * ””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Frym v. Ramsey

Relies on Mahone v. Williams · Kinsey v. Kinsey · Lehman v. Levy

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1882-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently January 1971

9 state decisions

301882189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

BRICKELL, O. J.

¶1The assignments of error refer only to the oue ruling on exceptions to the report of the register upon matters of account between the parties. On appeal from a decree of the chancellor, overruling exceptions to the 'report of the register on questions and matters of account dependent upon the conclusions drawn by the register from evidence produced before him, all reasonable presumptions are indulged to support his rulings, and they will not be disturbed unless shown to be clearly wrong.—Kinsey v. Kinsey, 37 Ala. 393; Mahone v. Williams, 39 Ala. 202; Lehman v. Levy, 69 Ala. 48. After a careful examination, we are not prepared to pronounce them erroneous:

¶2The first exception refers to the allowance of the fee paid by Banks to solicitors, for services rendered in the suit of Gregg v. JBcmles. The liability of Winter to pay the fee, if it was compensation for services rendered after he entered into the contract of purchase, can not be denied. The evidence showing that it was for such services, and not for antecedent services, may be .meagre; but yet it had a tendency to prove the .fact, and was the only evidence upon the point which was introduced. If the fact were otherwise, and the fee included services rendered prior and subsequent to the contract of purchase, the- evidence of it could have been produced by the defendants. As they offered no evidence upon the point, we can not say the register erred in concluding that the fee was, under the contract, properly chargeable to Winter.

¶3*411The matter of exceptions seems to have been very fully and carefully examined and considered by the chancellor, and we are satisfied with his conclusions. It is not clearly and satisfactorily shown that the register erred in any of the rulings to which the exceptions are directed, and they ought not to have been disturbed.

¶4Affirmed,

StoNE, J., not sitting.
/72/ala/409 · .json · Public domain