Jefferson Dairy Co. v. Williams

THOMAS, J. The duty of the pleader in drawing complaints (J. H. Burton & Sons Co. v. May, 212 Ala. 435, 438, 103 So. 46; Wright v. McCord, 205 Ala. 122, 125, 88 So. 150; B. R. L. & P. Co. v. Littleton, 201 Ala. 141, 148, 149, 77 So. 565; Ala. F. & I. Co. v. Bush, 204 Ala. 658, 86 So. 541; Dwight Mfg. Co. v. Holmes, 198 Ala. 590, 73 So. 933; Nat. Park Bank. v. L. & N. R. Co., 199 Ala. 192, 199, 74 So. 69; Newton v. Brook, 134 Ala. 269, 32 So. 722; Schmidt v. Mobile L. & R. Co., 204 Ala. 694, 87 So. 181), and pleas have been often stated (Dwight Mfg. Co. v. Holmes, 198 Ala. 590, 73 So. 933; Schmidt v. Mobile L. & R. Co., 204 Ala. 694, 87 So. 181; Wills’ Gould, on Pleading, 2, 3). The amended counts show (1) the facts from whence the d.uty to plaintiff arises out of the-relationship of the parties; and (2) the averment by way of conclusion of the breach thereof. Wright v. McCord, 205 Ala. 122, 88 So. 150; Ala. F. & I. Co. v. Bush, 204 Ala. 658, 86 So. 541; Ala. Power Co. v. Stogner, 208 Ala. 666, 668, 95 So. 151; J. H. Burton & Sons Co. v. May, 212 Ala. 435, 438, 103 So. 46. The demurrers were properly overruled. Appellant insists that the amendments are unintelligible because of inapt description as to lines, etc. Armstrong v. Walker, 200 Ala. 364, 366, 76 So. 280. The descriptive words employed designate the line as appears in the record proper to be No. 16 instead of line 17. The context was self-corrective, so the second amendment at the end related to the negligence of the defendant in delivering to plaintiff and made -the same to apply to agent, servant, or employee of defendant, while acting in the line and scope of said agency or employment. The amendments to count 2 are likewise intelligible for the reason so given of the context. Clinton Min. Co. v. Bradford, 200 Ala. 308, 76 So. 74; Insurance Co. v. Williams, 200 Ala. 681, 682, 77 So. 159; Randolph v. Bradford, 204 Ala. 378, 86 So. 39; Wood v. Barnett, 208 Ala. 295, 298, 94 So. 338; Ory-Cohen v. Taylor, 208 Ala. 520, 94 So. 525; Burgin v. Sugg, 210 Ala. 142, 97 So. 216; Reed v. Robinson; 213 Ala. 14, 104 So. 130. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. Affirmed. ANDERSON, O. J., and SOMERVILLE and BROWN, JJ., concur.