Gambar halaman

character required to carry on plantation op- agency, created in our opinion a mandate. erations. She had two cotton plantations in The terms and conditions of the contract do Louisiana and a small place in Mississippi, not give rise to the thought that it secured besides movable property and paper values, to plaintiff unearned salary claimed in case all of which were placed under the control the defendant decided to put an end to the and management of the plaintiff.

employment. She was the widow of the late N. D. Mur Moreover, the death of defendant, before dock.

noted, had the effect of putting an end to the Her husband accumulated quite a compe- agency, so that all claim for unearned salary tency. Dying, he made her his legatee. They passes out of consideration. had no forced heirs.

As to cause for discharging plaintiff : At least four times during their married Her personal property of which plaintiff life she was placed in an asylum because of had control amounted to $46,434.40. In acher mental condition.

counting for it the bookkeeping had been inAbout the time of the death of her hus- complete and insufficient, and in some in. band, she became an inmate of the asylumstances entirely wanting of entries which is at Jackson, Miss., and the court rendered a required in bookkeeping. It did not satisdecree of interdiction, which was subsequent factorily show what had become of a numly removed as before stated.

ber of dollars expended according to state We infer from the facts and circumstances, ment. made evident by the record, that she was of In addition, she was in debt for over $16,a nervous temperament, and at times unable 000. to properly control her mind.

She doubtless thought that a change was As she had been released from the law's necessary in order to escape ruin. restraining influence, we have to consider her An agent was needed who would bring more case as that of a person sui juris, without conservative influence to bear as relates to overlooking, however, that in her nervous business affairs on all concerned, from the condition of mind she was entitled to every first to the last. reasonable consideration in all that related In this, after having carefully examined to her business affairs.

the condition of affairs, we cannot hold that After the property had been delivered in- she erred in discharging plaintiff. to the possession of plaintiff, she became At this point it accurs to us to take up extremely extravagant, and, we infer, lived again the account, to which we referred beyond her means. She drank intoxicants above, as having been rendered by plaintiff to excess at times.

at the end of the first year of his gestion. At the end of the first year of plaintiff's As to this account, plaintiff's position is gestion, he prepared an account which she that the account was one rendered to the de signed. It consisted of a list of different fendant, the accountee; that it made complete amounts which plaintiff submitted to his prin- proof and operated as a release from any fur. cipal, and it ends with an unsustained state- ther inquiry, because she had approved it. ment of a large indebtedness to him.

If this account were near correct, it would This statement she approved and signed. be different.

The plaintiff thereafter continued with the The account of July, 1906, cannot be conmanagement.

sidered correct. The columns "credit" and About the end of the second year the de “debit” were not added. Deducting the one fendant chose to put an end to plaintiff's em- from the other, the error is evident if the ployment. She notified him to consider him- statement in red ink is to be taken as showself discharged, and to surrender possession ing the correct balance after deducting the and management of the property to Judge one from the other. The difference is great, E. C. Montgomery, his successor.

taking the respective addition of the column The right of defendant to discharge plain- into account. tiff is the first question before us for deci. The oversight of the accountant, if an oversion.

sight, discredits the accounting of that date. Mr. Holmes, defendant's employé, was not The balance arrived at is arbitrary. The defendant's servant or ordinary overseer or defendant sustained her defense that the apmanager. He was her trusted agent, and had proval of said account was an error. the administration, supervision, and control It must be borne in mind that it devolved of her business affairs.

upon plaintiff to sustain his account under After her confidence had been shaken, she the circumstances. 1 Rice on Evidence, 103– did not discharge him for good cause. 142; 5 Current Law, 89; 3 Current Law, 380;

The mandate could be removed, even if McAllister v. Srodes, 14 La. 443; Scarborshe had not had good cause.

ough v. Stevens, 3 Rob. 148; Succession of The principal may revoke his power of at- Peytavin, 7 Rob. 478; Succession of Desorme, torney whenever he thinks proper if the 10 Rob. 474; Police Jury v. Herbert, 2 La. agency was not an agency with an interest. Ann. 149. Civ. Code, art. 3028.

On the subject of agency and the neces. The contract between the parties, insep- sity of rendering a complete account to the

ing paragraphs. There must be perfect fair- , amount allowed to defendant In reconvenness, adequacy, and equity on the part of tion to the sum of $8,216.23. As amended, the attorney. Story, Equity Jurisprudence, the judgment is affirmed. The right of de312a, 312b, 312c.

fendant to her jewelry is reserved, plaintiff We take as a basis the item above refer- and appellant to pay the costs of appeal. red to as stated in red ink, on account of July, 1906, viz., $1,196.81.

The appellee does not particularly object to it.

We therefore leave it as it is, and arrive at the following result:

MEMORANDUM DECISIONS. Debit: Attorney's fee:

The following are the reasons for not al. lowing that amount. The leading counsel in matter of removing the interdiction stated

Ex parte BALL. (Supreme Court of Alathat $1,000 is an ample fee for all services & Sanford, for petitioner. Gunter & Gunter,

bama. Jan. 18, 1910.) J. M. Chilton and Ball rendered.

opposed. Two thousand dollars were paid.

PER CURIAM. Rule nisi denied. The plaintiff did not take an active part as an attorney. He made no argument in

BEECHER v. HENDERSON et al. (Sucourt, examined no witnesses, made no sug. preme Court of Alabama. Dec. 16, 1909.) Apgestion to the court. His name does not ap- peal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; .. pear as attorney in any of the proceedings. 0. Lane, Judge. Defendant testified that she did not know

PER CURIAM. Affirmed on certificate. that the amount was charged in the account of July, 1906, numbered 207. She further BIRMINGHAM RY., LIGHT & POWER testified that she assumed at the time that 00. v. RICE. (Supreme Court of Alabama. in contracting to pay plaintiff the salary stat. Birmingham; c. W. Ferguson, Judge.

Jan. 13, 1910.) Appeal from City Court of

Tilled in the contract it included everything in man, Grubb, Bradley & Morrow and Charles the way of services.

E. Rice, for appellant. Stallings & Drennen, From her statement plaintiff never at any and Wiley Logan, for appellee. time claimed the fee in question.

PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed by agree

ment of parties. Another item added to “debit" is the sum of $2,300, identified by reference to the Stubb loan.

Ex parte BOZEMAN et al. (Supreme Court When this item was called to the atten- of Alabama. Feb. 26, 1910.) Glover, Mixon &

W. 0. Mulkey, pro tion of plaintiff, he said that the expert book- Valentine, for petitioner. keeper who had prepared the account would

PER CURIAM. Application for writ of proexplain and show that it is correct.

hibition denied. The testimony does not sustain it.

In matter of the Union Oil Company: Amount of a check...

$ 573 14

BURGIN V. COCKRELL. (Supreme Court Statement of account current of J.

of Alabama, Jan. 13, 1910.) Appeal from M. Parker & Co., amount drawn

Circuit Court, Pickens County; A. H. Alston, by plaintiff.

1,583 01 Judge. Curry & Robison, for appellee. Amount paid to hands on the De

PER CURIAM. Affirmed on certificate. Mors place...

602 35 List of drafts of plaintiff as per account

3,157 73 CALDWELL V. STATE. (Supreme Court

of Alabama. Jan. 18, 1909.) Appeal from

$ 8.216 23 Probate Court, Perry County; J. B. Shivers, As against credit....

7,979 97 Judge. W. F. Hogue, for appellant. Alexander

M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.

$16,196 02 DOWDELL, J. It is ordered that the petiLeaving a balance against plain

tioner be allowed bail; and the cause is actiff of...

$ 8,216 23 cordingly reversed, rendered, and remanded. We will state in conclusion, there is a con


JJ., concur. currence of facts excluding the possibility of rendering judgment in favor of plaintiff.

We add that there is a standard of dili. CARROLL v. T. C. BINGHAM & CO. (Sugence to which one should conform when in preme Court of Alabama. Jan. 13, 1910.) Apcharge of the property of another, who, as in peal from Circuit Court, Randolph County;

S. L. Brewer, Judge. R. J. Hooten, for appelthis instance, is an old lady, who had been lent. Heflin, Burns & Bynum, for appellees. placed in an asylum at different times.

PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of proseShe was not accustomed to plantation man- cution. agement, and was unable to judge of the efficiency of such management. For reasons stated, it is ordered, adjudged, Alabama. Jan. 13, 1910.) Appeal from Crim

CONNELL 1. STATE. (Supreme Court of and decreed that the judgment appealed from inal Court, Jefferson County; $. L. Weaver,


and appeals. Affirmed. Alexander M. Garber, , Judge. Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for Atty. Gen., for the State.

the State. EVANS, J. In this case, there being no bill ANDERSON, J. There is no error of record, of exceptions, and no error apparent upon the and no bill of exceptions; so the judgment is record, the judgment of the criminal court of affirmed. Jefferson county is affirmed. Affirmed.

MCCLELLAN, MAYFIELD, and SAYRE, DOWDELL, C. J., and ANDERSON and JJ., concur. SAYRE, JJ., concur.

HESTER v. TAYLOR. (Supreme Court of of Alabama. Jan. 13, 1910.) Appeal from City

SCHULER v. FISCHER. (Supreme Court Alabama. Jan. 13, 1910.) Appeal from Cir. Court of Gadsden; John H. Disque, Judge. cuit Court, Randolph County ; S. L. Brewer, Judge. Blake & Walker, for appellant. R. J.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed on certificate. Hooten, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed for want of assign

SMITH v. JEFFERSON. (Supreme Court ment of errors.

of Alabama. Feb. 10, 1910.) Appeal from Chancery Court, Jefferson County; A. H. Ben

ners, Judge. Suit by E. A. Smith against H. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. OF H. K. Jefferson. From an adverse decree, comAMERICA V. MARTIN. (Supreme Court of plainant appeals. Affirmed. Charles E Elder Alabama. Jan. 18, 1910.) Appeal from Circuit and John H. Miller, for appellant. A. C. & Court, Henry County; A. A. Evans, Judge. H. R. Howze, for appellee. B. B. Hayes, for appellant. R. W. Miller, for

MCCLELLAN, J. The complainant's (appelappellee.

lant's) bill sought the enforcement of liens on PER CURIAM. Death of appellee suggested real estate, asserted to have resulted, to his on June 8, 1909, with leave to revise, and cause benefit, from registered judgments against the continued. Cause not having been revised, on respondent, Jefferson. The defenses were these: motion of appellee, the appeal is abated. Novation, in that certain parties, named Rich,

assumed, with complainant's consent and agree

ment, the payment of Jefferson's indebtedness JACKSON v. CITY OF ANNISTON. (Su- to complainant, and the discharge of Jefferson preme Court of Alabama. Jan. 13, 1910.) Ap- as debtor, and the substitution of the Riches peal from City Court of Anniston; Thomas W. therefor; secondly, the satisfaction of the inColeman, Jr., Judge.

debtedness by the Riches in a transaction bePER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed on mo

tween the Riches and complainant. The issues tion.

were of fact purely, and the learned chancellor resolved the matter in favor of the extinguishment of any liability on the judgments as far as

Jefferson was concerned. A careful consideraJACKSON V. STATE. (Supreme Court of tion of the evidence in this record does not conAlabama. Jan. 13, 1910.) Appeal from City vince us that the conclusion below was errone. Court of Anniston; Thomas W. Coleman, Jr.,

Affirmed. Judge. Tate & Walker, for appellant. Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.


JJ., concur. PER CURIAM. Dismissed on motion of appellant.


KET CO. (Supreme Court of Alabama. Feb. LEVINS et al. v. NUSS. (Supreme Court of 3, 1910.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah Alabama. Dec. 16, 1909.) Appeal from Circuit County; John W. Inzer, Judge. Court, Cullman County; D. W. Speake, Judge. F. E. St. John, for appellants. Brown & Kyle,

PER CURIAM. Affirmed on certificate. for appellee.

PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed on motion STRICKLAND BROS. MACH. CO. of appellee.

FAIRBANKS CO. (Supreme Court of Alabama. Dec. 16, 1909.) Appeal from Circuit

Court, Tuscaloosa County; S. H. Sprott, Judge. McDUFFIE v. STATE. (Supreme Court of PER CURIAM. Affirmed on certificate. Alabama. Feb. 3, 1910.) Appeal from City Court of Gadsden; Alto V. Lee, Judge. Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.

TENNESSEE COAL, IRON & R. CO. v. ANDERSON, J. There being no bill of ex- GUNN. (Supreme Court of Alabama. Jan. ceptions in this case, and no error appearing in 13, 1910.) 'Appeal from City Court of Bessethe record proper, the judgment of the city mer; William Jackson, Judge. Percy, Benners court is affirmed. Affirmed.

& Burr, for appellant. Stallings, Drennen & DOWDELL, C. J., and MAYFIELD and Winkler, and H. C. Mead, for appellee. SAYRE, JJ., concur.

SAYRE, J. Dismissed by agreement of par ties.


MELTON & STUART v. FARMERS' OIL & MFG. CO. (Supreme Court of Alabama. VINEGAR BEND LUMBER CO. v. SOULE Feb. 10, 1910.) Appeal from Circuit Court, STEAM FEED WORKS. (Supreme Court of Wilcox County; B. M. Miller, Judge. Miller Alabama. Jan. 18, 1910.) Appeal from Circuit & Miller, for appellant.

Court, Mobile County; Samuel B. Browne, PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed on mo-Judge. Charles L. Bromberg and Massey Wiltion. See, also, 159 Ala. 469, 49 South. 225. son, for appellant. G. L. & H. T. Smith, for


MAYFIELD, J. Reversed and remanded, for MILLER V. STATE. (Supreme Court of errors in the admission of evidence. Alabama. Feb. 3, 1910.) Appeal from Crim DOWDELL, C. J., and SIMPSON and Mc

BLOUNT V. BARWICK. (Supreme Court JONES v. TYLER. (Supreme Court of Morof Florida. Aug. 16, 1909.) In Banc. Error ida. Aug. 10, 1909.) In Banc. Error to Cirto Circuit Court, Marion County; W. S. Bul- cuit Court, Hillsborough County; J. B. Wall, lock, Judge. Hocker & Duval, for plaintiff in Judge. Frazier & Mabry, for plaintiff in error. error.

PER CURIAM. Writ of error from a judge PER CURIAM. Judgment in favor of de- ment in favor of the defendant in error. Disfendant in error. Writ of error dismissed be missed before the clerk on præcipe of counsel fore the clerk on præcipe of counsel for plain. for plaintiff in error. See, also, 51 South. 283. tiff in error.

KNICKERBOCKER TRUST CO. et al. V. FLORIDA ICE MFG. CO. v. RUST BOIL- | INGALLS et al. (Supreme Court of Florida. ER CO. (Supreme Court of Florida. June June Term, 1909.) In Banc. Appeal from CirTerm, 1909.) In Banc. Appeal from Circuit cuit Court, Polk County; J. B. Wall, Judge. Court, Duval County ; R. M. Call, Judge. MacFarlane & Davis, for appellants. P. 0. Fletcher & Dodge, for appellant. Cooper & Knight, E. R. Gunby, F. M. Simonton, and Cooper, for appellee.

Wilson & Boswell, for appellees. PER CURIAM. Decree in favor of appellee.

PER CURIAJ. Appeal by appellants from Appeal dismissed on motion of counsel for ap- missed by order of court.

an order in favor of appellees. Appeal dispellant.

GAINESVILLE & GULF RY. CO. V. PEP NICHOLS et al. v. FRANK et al. (Supreme PER PUBLISHING & PRINTING CO. (Su-Court of Florida. June Term, 1909.) In Banc. preme Court of Florida. Jan. 8, 1910.) In Appeal from Circuit Court, Hillsborough CounBanc. Error to Circuit Court, Alachua Coun- ty; J. B. Wall, Judge. E. R. Gunby and W. ty; J. T. Wills, Judge. F. M. Simonton, for #.' Jackson, for appellants. F. M. Simonton plaintiff in error.

and Wall & McKay, for appellees. PER CURIAM. Judgment in favor of de PER CURIAM. Decree in favor of appelfendant in error. Writ of error dismissed be- | lees. Appeal disinissed, as to appellee L. Athanfore the clerk on præcipe of counsel for plaintiff asaw, on motion of counsel for appellee. in error.


June Court of Florida. Nov. 29, 1909.) In Banc. Term, 1909.) In Banc. Error to Circuit Court, Ippeal from Circuit Court, Manatee County : | Hillsborough County; J. B. Wall, Judge. J. J. B. Wall, Judge. Singeltary & Reaves, for Hall Brumsey, for plaintiff in error. Wall & appellants.

McKay, for defendants in error. PER CURIAM. Appeal from a decree in PER CURIAM. There was judgment for the favor of appellee. Appeal dismissed before the defendants in error, and the plaintiff in error clerk on præcipe of counsel for appellants. takes writ of error, Writ of error dismissed on

motion of counsel for the defendants in error.

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY COM'RS V. JACKSON, Sheriff. (Supreme Court of Flor

THOMAS V. STATE. ida. June Term, 1909.) In Banc.

(Supreme Court of

Florida. June Term, 1909.) In Banc. Error PER CURIAM. For the reasons stated in to Criminal Court of Record, Walton County ; the opinion this day filed in the case of County D. Stuart Gillis, Judge. The Attorney GenCommissioners of Hillsborough County v. R. A. eral, for the State. Jackson, as Sheriff, 50 South. 423, the judgment in this cause must be, and the same is hereby, in error.

PER CURIAM. Judgment against plaintiff

Writ of error dismissed on motion of affirmed.

the Attorney General.

JOINS V. TUTEN. (Supreme Court of Florida. June Term, 1909). In Banc. Error

SPELLMAN et al. v. McKEEN. (No. 14,445.) to Circuit Court, Hamilton County; B. H. (Supreme Court of Mississippi. April 11, 1910. Palmer, Judge. Small. Palmer & Sanford and Suggestion of Error Overruled May 2, 1910.) C. A. Stephens, for plaintiff in error. M. F. On suggestion of error. Overruled. For for Horne and H. S. Caldwell, for defendant in er mer opinion, see 51 South. 914.

PER CURIAM. The judgment heretofore enPER CURIAM. Action by defendant in er tered in this cause affects only those defendants ror against plaintiff in error. There was judg- in the court below who are parties to this apment for the defendant in error, and the plain-peal. The cause, in so far as those defendants tiff in error takes writ of error. Writ of error are concerned who are not parties to the appeal, dismissed by the court on motion of counsel for is still pending in the court below. The suggesthe defendant in error.

tion of error is therefore overruled.



« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »