Street v. Treadwell

REPORTS ALABAMA allege knowledge Company, lien de- or notice on you if it if ask hasn’t been the Woodward fendant, raised Woodward Iron worse since appear by alleging that that defend- it does Company built furnace and had built its allegation lien, con- objected ant “knew” of strued edge, would be plant. (Defendants to the by-product actual or constructive knowl- ground mean not been question on synon- though a rule is not time. in that had been built that it shown ymous objection, with notice. to the court sustained ruling duly and there then of the court Note.—For Words [Ed. other excepted.)” Knowl- First and Second edge; Notice.] plaintiffs benefit denial Appeal (cid:127)4. and Error response —Record- to this the witness’ Ruling Review — on Plea. . According doctrine error plea Where verdict Hamilton, 100 Ala. of Tenn. Co. on the issue merits Rep. re 46 Am. St. setting limitations, ruling up on demurrer to Co., 80 cently in Jones Tenn. reiterated grounds, ab- other will not be reviewed in plain the burden was exceptions sence of bill and oral damage prop to their tiffs to the court from the record. wrongs consequent upon erty attribu dissenting. Sayre, J., independently. defendant, acting table to The iner’s just quoted question the exam evinced Clay County; response that purpose to adduce Hugh Judge. Merrill, D. given, would, to show tended if plants operation C. Street defendant’s S. D. Tread- acting independently, Judgment defendants, contributed, make well and others. along damnifying the and condition Transferred from 1911, worse through Appeals plaintiffs’ farm. Court of course section water Acts way appear p. could the of the 449. does it In no other approached proof plaintiffs appellant here, against Suit a recov their essential matter so (appellees) defendants for to recover ery. lien, the destruction of Bennett, opinion of the witness [7] The landlord, rent of a certain farm through question put plaintiff’s tenant, Griffin, in that the de- respect comparison with to a invited grown fendant moved some lint cotton supposed to be well odors other offensive known. the place, lien, on which had a of the court The action where is unable to enforce his ground, objection, stating cannot and said lien is therefore a loss to him. offensiveness for error. The complaint: Defendants demurred to the open in the stream water assignment being, the second appear ways. more direct complaint from said that defendants indicated, judgment For the error knew of lien.” The demurrer was reversed, cause is remanded. and the sustained, complaint and the amended. De- and remanded. pleaded general issue; second, fendants year; third, SAYRE the statute of limitations of one JJ., payment debt; (Griffin) tenant fourth, was due tenant cer- implements aggregating tain more than the claimed, amount of rent etc. Plea 4 as amended was demurred to (7 Div. et al. ground that it did May 22, 1919.) (Supreme of Alabama. Court any consideration; contract had agreement the the repairs was void under <&wkey;'252(3) and Tenant —Loss 1. Landlord frauds; Liability that sufficient facts statute Person. Third Lien — oe discharge show a stated person loss of liable for To render third subject lien; property the facts stated lien removal of landlord’s to (cid:127)or notice, person payment must have the indebted- not constitute a did constructive, of tbe lien. plaintiff from Griffin. ness due replications Plaintiff filed — Pleading — <&wkey;34(l) Demurrer Con- thereon; (2) Taking (1) as amended: issue struction. frauds; under the statute that was void Language in a demurrer (3) was without the contract construction. sideration. — Pleading — <&wkey;34(5)Demurrer Con- issue be- “Knowledge” — — “Notice”— struction Landlord’s joined, ing thus Lien. jury, resulting in the to a loss of landlord’s lien Where “We, following tbe render subject property verdict: lien failed to removal in all cases see KEY-NUMBER 69 dealing with the where question The the defendant.” verdict in favor of injury personal alone, of in peal wantonness a no bill and with is the record “knowledge” and “no exceptions. it was held that of clearly ap synonymous: not tice” were Talladega, Riddle, of Riddle & pearing in cases that character that no of lant. equivalent knowl actual tice is not the of Ashland, appellees. Lackey, W. M. of holding, edge. The correctness of this course, is not to under those circumstances questioned, discus by too clear for [1, be is 2] It is first insisted So, also, v.Mills appellant’s sion. Woolen Cleveland error was counsel Sibert, 140, by 1 Ward & 81 Ala. South. court in the committed demurrer to the requested construing language 773, complaint. It be seems to pointed that, out instruction to it was to establish liabil conceded counsel synony knowledge ity character, were not that notice and mous, in a case of this it must be may con be or at least instruction shown that the defendants had notice or inquiry confining knowledge plaintiff’s original strued of the lien. The entirely In v. Nori respect. too narrow limits. Bova within silent this gian, 319, 327, Am. St. assignment taking R. I. Atl. 125 28 The 67 of demurrer this equivalent Rep. 743, language, that notice is was said uses the knowledge; information, intelligence, or from knew' is said defendants Knoer, argument lien,” 136 in Piekenbrock & Sons v. and Iowa, 200, 534, 114 the court said: N. W. this was insufficient in that it made that of, should “knew or notice of “Knowledge fraud, construed as we and therefore connection, expression that contemplate statute should not have been sustained. knowledge thereof before recognized course, knowledge begins It well cases of run, such but pru- purchaser this character that of notice as man of reasonable would lead a inquiries crops disclose tenant, dence make would necessary it is from a the fraud.” he lien; have actual notice of should landlord’s knowledge for, suffi facts if he has facts knowledge See, Vanzandt, inquiry, also, cient which 13 Cas. Jones Fed. to excite v. p. 3941; naturally 5, 2, pp. reasonably 1047; Words vol. be would 1315, suspicion (2d Ser.) main Words and to arouse vol. calculated fact —notice of which Phrases charged be is Kelly duty inquiry exists, Eyster, he 102 of as held While case of v. to him—the 325, 657, it, Ala. 14 South. court exercise discussed, yet Brown, consideration was not there Foxworth 114 Ala. v. LeGrand, think that the construc- we case illustrates and Lomax v. given pleading here well cases. tion of which is as numerous other language assignment language assignment used in of demur- used this, That was be con- rer. demurrer should struction rule We dicating keeping well-recognized with for the destruction of knowledge regard to cases of character. In the discussion construe as in- the existence such lien. do not used knowledge pointed opinion out in the case it is that actual was neces- of entirely knowledge sary, only general issue was prove law, the exist- be it for the lien as is constructive. actual or sufficient knowledge or notice of As this court in Gam- ence of the part defendant, as Coal 172 ble Warrior Ala. that fact going the latter 55 South. 190: knew cotton, lien on existence clearly, equivalent be “Means of the mind court knowledge. is sufficient to Whatever “knowledge” “notice,” pleading, inquiry, the Words guard, is notice and call inquiry particular everything lead.” to which would used were sense synonymous. regard to' the rule here we do not above-stated what is mean to necessity showing knowledge rule, “knowledge” notice on as a indicate synonymous established, meaning “notice.” is well is safely assume, largely we think can well of a we word is to determined generally by pointed known and connection in which it is used. understood As Harrington State, that we out courts. be remembered are the this court in 76 merely construing here the extent of words light phrases always same when rule. The com- with different well known plaint established used in connection statutes only question subjects. defective, relating Ry. In different Southern .the Bunt, 32 of demurrer Ala. whether Co. v. ^[1] Ala. ALABAMAREPORTS complete up- definite and as to It results as our conclusion sustaining complaint. hold court in ment of below should affirmed. the demurrer defective opinion areWe that the court con- X, ANDERSON, MAYFIELD, strued the set out “lmew of and SOM- ERVILLE, demurrer, THOMAS, JX, as and McCLELLAN, conclusion, and that the defendants concurs law; resting upon holding knew knowledge, such lien that his concurrence constructive, Black, Adm’r, either actual or as the case v. S.-S. S. & I. supra. cases this character to rest liability upon ing SAYRE, X, So constru- defendants. dissents. demurrer, the opinion we are cannot be in error ruling for its thereon. be doubted that for the lant assignment stated below reasons (82 anything any event could take SMITH. ALABAMA FUEL & IRON CO. foregoing error, but, as Div. disposes same, no there is occasion May Supreme question. Court of Alabama. consideration of [3,4] of error relates The next Master Servant overruling ruling —Relation- Independent Contractors. 4 as amended. employer choice, . Where defendant pleading in the cause The substance of trol, plaintiff and direction and another over appears We statement the case. them, men and such oth- and er exceptions, bill nor in the record only represented ulti- charge of oral record contain the does thfe the court. quested details, mate the its result of the but in all of work any charges re- If were there relation to defendant of they refused, writing, servants, in- of master dependent contractors, although they referred absent from the record. are also ment upon to themselves as “contractors.” tried £hat cause was discloses [Ed. Note.—For other see Words merits; and ant.] Master Serv- Second consideration, jury ato resulting in a verdict the defendants. aught appears by record, For Jefferson Coun been verdict plea . ty Judge ; Ferguson, W.C. issue for a failure on by Henry against Smith the Alaba- to sustain the averments Company. From ma Fuel & complaint, of his for and remanded. year, or, statute of limitations of one as set up plea, paid the tenant had based, entire debt on which the the and suit was Burr, Birmingham, Percy, Benners & before the suit was instituted. appellant. Upon phase ruling Harsh, Harsh, Ward, M. L. Harsh & very Black, court in the Slaughter, Birmingham, recent case of W. J. Adm’r, 794,2 & pellee. v. S.-S. I. S. touching upon where the authorities collated, pres decisive of majority). (for This C. J. appeal ent effect that erról appears to been cause submitted to the any ruling this jury upon 1, 4, pro counts and 7. Count 1 plea, appear. has not been made to theory upon the ceeds a Shelby conclusion in the recent case of servant, charges negligence against Bierly, Iron Co. v. superintendent one also “Redmond.’’ Count 4 is holding militate in the instant brought capacity servant, no manner conflicts the employe, charges negligence to an holding supra. . Case, In the superintendent negatives unknown Count Bierly Case a demurrer was sustained to plaintiff being servant, employe, defendant, good held him a licensee describes invitation. . proper ruling and set of defense both court, appellant’s and one Brandt were servants of defend- present to That upon a meritorious injury, defense was denied. the time of the ant at and there was merely presented appeal a case where from also sufficient evidence which the superintend- the whole record the find that Brandt had could probably injuriously he, court stantial affected the sub ence intrusted to some ot rights appellant. presence, his left the short men eart- cases

@s»For other KEY-NUMBER in all

Case Details

Case Name: Street v. Treadwell

Court Name: Supreme Court of Alabama

Date Published: May 22, 1919

Citation: 82 So. 28

Docket Number: 7 Div. 4.

Court Abbreviation: Ala.