Broadus v. Lindsey, 84 So. 776 (Ala. Ct. App. 1919). · Go Syfert
Broadus v. Lindsey, 84 So. 776 (Ala. Ct. App. 1919). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Broadus
v.
Lindsey.
1 Div. 315..
Alabama Court of Appeals.
Oct 28, 1919.
84 So. 776
Frederick Bromberg, of Mobile, for appellant. Count A was insufficient. 13 Ala. App. 448 , 68 So. 582 ; 11 Ala. App. 670 , 66 So. 954 . The court erred in refusing to specially find the facts. Section 5360, Code 1907; 16 Ala. App. 346 , 77 So. 940 ; 154 Ala. 295 , 45 So. 155 ; 146 Ala. 610 , 40 So. 954 . The judges of the circuit court of Mobile county must sit together in the trial of all causes at law. Acts 1915, pp. 352, 809; 195 Ala. 107 , 70 So. 905 ; 201 Ala. 409 , 78 So. 787 . Jesse F. Hogan, of Mobile, for appellee. Count A was sufficient, and was not subject to the demurrers or motion to dismiss. 167 Ala. 534 , 52 So. 737 ; 176 Ala. 51 , 57 So. 483 ; 90 Ala. 44 , 7 So. 813 ; 66 Ala. 592 ; 32 Ala. 50 . The law of the case is ruled by 195 Ala. 186 , 70 So. 141 , and 16 Ala. App. 348 , 77 So. 942 .
Brown.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
BROWN, P. J.

[1, 2] The principles of law governing the case as presented by count A are clearly stated in Harton v. Belcher, 195 Ala. 186, 70 South. 141, and Berry v. Wooddy, 16 Ala. App. 348, 77 South. 942. Count A is not subject to the objection that it does not state a substantial cause of action, and it was not subject to the stated ground of demurrer.

[3, 4] The statute of limitations of 1 year was not pleaded, and the limitations of 3, 6, and 10 years are not appropriate or applicable to an action for deceit. Code 1907, § 4840, subd. 5.

[5, 6] The defendants request “to find the facts in this cause at the trial thereof” is not a request for “a special finding of facts,” and the rendition of judgment without such special finding of facts did not contravene any right given to the appellant by Code 1907, § 5360, which provides that “the finding of the court may be general, »* * * unless the parties, or either of them, in writing, request a special finding of the facts.”

[7] The subject-matter of count A arises out of the same subject-matter as the other counts, and the allowance of the amendment of the complaint by adding count A was permissible. Gambill v. Fox Typewriter Co., 190 Ala. 36, 66 South. 655.

[8 ] There was evidence which, if believed, justified the findings of the trial court. Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403, 72 South. 52; Pinkard v. Cassels, 195 Ala. 353, 70 South. 153.

We find no reversible error in the record, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.