Maddox v. Dunklin

50 So. 277 | Ala. | 1909

Lead Opinion

SIMPSON, J.

This is a.n action by the appellee against the appellant for the conversion of Uvo mules. The court, on the written request of the plaintiff, gave the general affirmative charge in favor of said plaintiff. The bill of exceptions does not state that it contains all *281of the evidence/, and there is internal evidence that it does ■ not contain all. This court has frequently ■ held that, unless the bill of exceptions shows that it contains all of the evidence, the court will' presume that there was evidence justifying the trial court in giving the general charge.—Wardsworth v. Williams, 101 Ala. 264, 13 South. 755; Evansville, etc., Co. v. Slater, 101 Ala. 245, 15 South. 241; Western Ry. v. Williams, 114 Ala. 145, 21 South. 827.

There was no error in the giving of charge No. 4, as to the measure of damages.—McLester v. Somerville & McEachin, 54 Ala. 670.

There was no error in the admission of the mortgages to Street, as the evidence tended to show that the mortgage under which the plaintiff: claimed was given in renewal of them; nor was there any other error in the admission or the exclusion of evidence.

The judgment of the court is affirmed.

Dowdell, G. J. and Mayfield and Sayre, JJ., concur.



Rehearing

ON REHEARING.

SIMPSON, J.

The defendant objected to the introduction of two of the mortgages, because the description of the mules in the same differs from the description in the complaint of the mules claimed to have been converted. Plaintiff’s counsel stated to the court that evidence would be offered connecting each of the mortgage notes with the mortgage to the plaintiff, and the court admitted the mortgages. If, "after the evidence was taken, the defendant thought that it had not sufficiently connected the transactions to make the mortgages admissible, he should have moved then to exclude *282the mortgages, in order to put' the court in, error. In •addition, it'may be said that, as no judgment was sought or obtained on account of any mules other than those described in the complaint, it cannot be seen how the introduction of the mortgages could or did in any manner prejudice the case of the defendant.

• As to not discussing all of the points suggested in the brief of appellant, this court discusses only those that are necessary to a decision of the case, and does not attempt further to lay down a “rule of guidance or precedent to the bench and bar of the state.” “In the judicial records of the king’s courts, the reasons or causes of the judgment,” says Lord Coke, “are not expressed; for wise and learned men do, before they judge, labor to reach the depths of all the reasons of the case in question, but, in their judgments, express not any; and in truth, if judges should set .down the reasons and causes of their judgments, within every record, that immense labor should withdraw them from the necessary services of" the common-wealth, and their records should grow to be like Elephantini Libri, of infinite length, and, in mine opinion, lose somewhat of their present authority and reverence;' and this is worthy for learned and grave men to-imitate.”- — Coke’s Reports, part, 3, pref. 5. “It can serve no purpose of public good to repeat elementary principles of law which have never been questioned for centuries.”—Vaughn v. Harp, 49 Ark. 160, 163, 4. S. W. 751, 753.