80 So. 36 | Ala. | 1918
This suit was brought by appellee against appellant, Calabee J. Walker, and her husband, M. T. Walker, upon a contract in writing for the purchase price of certain fertilizer.
Appellant's husband admitted his liability, and judgment was rendered against him. The wife, appellant here, interposed the defense that she signed the contract as surety for her husband, and was therefore not bound thereby. It was insisted on the part of plaintiff (appellee) that the contract of purchase was made jointly by the husband and wife, and that the wife was not a surety, but one *215
of the principals, bound equally with the husband. Lunsford v. Harrison,
The evidence upon this issue was, we think, sufficient for submission to the jury, and the affirmative charge requested by the defendant was properly refused.
It is insisted, however, there was error in the refusal of the lower court to grant a new trial upon the ground the verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evidence. The testimony has been very carefully considered by the court in consultation, and no useful purpose would be subserved by a discussion of the same here.
It must be confessed that the question presented by the motion is not free from difficulty. The issue was clearly presented to the jury in the court's oral charge, and determined adversely to appellant. The trial judge had the witnesses before him, and could note their demeanor upon the stand. Under these circumstances, the rule of Cobb v. Malone,
Certain testimony elicited from a witness for the plaintiff was objected to upon the ground that the same disclosed an offer to compromise, and was therefore inadmissible under the rule recognized in this state. Sandlin v. Kennedy,
It results that we find no error in the record, and the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
McCLELLAN, MAYFIELD, and SAYRE, JJ., concur.
