From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miller Bros. v. Direct Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama
Apr 20, 1922
92 So. 473 (Ala. 1922)

Opinion

6 Div. 628.

April 20, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Blount County; W. J. Martin, Judge.

Ward, Nash Fendley, of Oneonta, for appellant.

The court erred in its rulings on the evidence, and should have granted the motion for new trial. 75 Ala. 487; 117 Ala. 603, 23 So. 655; 204 Ala. 251, 85 So. 476, and cases cited.

Russell Johnson, of Oneonta, for appellee.

Only rulings arising on the motion for new trial can be considered, since the bill of exceptions was presented more than 90 days after the trial. 3 Ala. App. 547, 57 So. 630; 4 Ala. App. 390, 58 So. 118. There was no error committed by the trial court in overruling the motion for new trial. 113 Ala. 519, 21 So. 376, 59 Am. St. Rep. 135; 196 Ala. 248, 72 So. 110; 31 Ala. 160.


The action of the court in overruling the defendants' motion for a new trial, is the only question here presented for consideration. The grounds of the motion were stated in very general language, and it may be seriously questioned that the court is required to further inspect the record for the ascertainment of the particular rulings on evidence, of which complaint is made. Moneagle v. Livingston, 150 Ala. 562, 43 So. 843. We pass this question, however, without decision, and rest our conclusion upon the matters of merit involved in the appeal.

This litigation arises out of a contract in writing for the sale of lumber by the defendants to the plaintiffs. The contract will appear in the report of the case. Under its terms the lumber was to be loaded by the seller on the cars at Altoona; but the contract was silent as to the question of time of payment. Under such circumstances, the sale will be regarded as having been made for cash. Robbins v. Harrison, 31 Ala. 160; Brady v. Green, 159 Ala. 483, 48 So. 807; Long v. Addix, 184 Ala. 236, 63 So. 982; 23 R. C. L. 1382. The payment of the purchase price and delivery of the lumber were therefore concurrent acts. It therefore appears the contract was complete; and it is a well-understood rule of evidence that parol proof of oral stipulations or agreements, tending to contradict or vary the written contract, is not admissible. 10 R. C. L. 1030; 7 Mayf. Dig. 355, 356; Roll v. Puritan Mfg. Co., 162 Ala. 416, 50 So. 354.

The admission of the proof offered by the defendants would have done violence to this well-established rule, that sought to show that plaintiffs had orally agreed at the time of making this contract that they would come to Altoona and inspect the lumber on the defendants' millyard, and at the time of inspection pay one-half the contract price, and the remainder of the contract price when the lumber was loaded on the cars. Under the terms of such an oral agreement the plaintiffs will be required to surrender one-half of the purchase price without the security of a delivery of any of the lumber, while according to the terms of the written contract, in connection with the rule of law applicable thereto, the delivery of the lumber was to be a concurrent act with the payment of the purchase price. The evidence was properly excluded, and the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE and MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Miller Bros. v. Direct Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama
Apr 20, 1922
92 So. 473 (Ala. 1922)
Case details for

Miller Bros. v. Direct Lumber Co.

Case Details

Full title:MILLER BROS. v. DIRECT LUMBER CO

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Apr 20, 1922

Citations

92 So. 473 (Ala. 1922)
92 So. 473

Citing Cases

Warrick v. Liddon

There was not a completed sale of the cotton. Allen, Bethune Co. v. Maury Co., 66 Ala. 10; Loval v. Wolf, 179…

Cornell v. State

(Same observation as above.) Edwards v. Hastings Distributing Co., 107 Neb. 621 ( 186 N.W. 980); Miller v.…