111 So. 641 | Ala. | 1926
The appeal is to review the ruling upon the pleading. The effect of pleas 4 and 5 was to limit the consideration to one of defendant's, and was insufficient against the demurrer. If the contract has a consideration to support it, this is sufficient though the consideration may have been received by a third person, for whose benefit the defendant contracted. 13 C. J. p. 740, § 884; Moore v. Williamson,
Plea 8 is defective in averring facts that did not show fraud. The averment of fraud is a conclusion of the pleader (27 C. J. 31; Hutchinson v. Bozeman,
Pleas B and C are subject to demurrers directed thereto. It is not averred that the bank was called upon to plane the lumber, or that it violated any contractual obligation it had made with the defendant, or upon which he relied and parted with value.
The court overruled the demurrer to plea X and sustained same to plea Y. Defendant had the benefit in plea X, of matter sought to be set up, had he not voluntarily withdrawn plea X, thereby depriving himself of said plea. By his own act, he was deprived of the benefit of material matter he sought to set up in plea Y and may have been proven under plea X.
We find no reversible error, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE and BOULDIN, JJ., concur. *600