Alabama Court of Appeals, 1919

Broadus v. Lindsey

Broadus v. Lindsey
Alabama Court of Appeals · Decided October 28, 1919 · Brown
84 So. 776; 17 Ala. App. 342; 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 276 (Southern Reporter)

Broadus v. Lindsey

Opinion of the Court

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.