Strother's Adm'r. v. Butler

Citations

• 17 Ala. 733

Syllabus

<p>1. Where it does not appear from the record of a former suit, that a particular demand was passed upon, parol proof is admissible to show that it was; but, in the absence of such proof, it cannot be presumed that it was so passed upon, especially, if the demand be of such a character, as, privia facie, to authorise the conclusion, that it could not have been tried in the former suit.</p> <p>2. A contract, by which the owner of a farm agrees to give to his overseer a portion of the products for his services, creates between them a tenancy in common íd the products. ‘</p> <p>3. If one tenant in common, having the management of the joint interest, employ his son, then under his control and a member of his family, in and about the common business, with the knowledge of, and without objection from his co-tenant, it is a circumstance tending to show a contract between them for the services of the son; and the presumption of a contract would be the more reasonable, if the business actually required such services.</p> <p>4.:-One tenant in common may maintain assumpsit against the other to recover contribution for services, rendered by the. former in and about their common business, in pursuance of a contract or agreement between them for .guch services.</p> <p>5.v If' oneconvert the chattel of another by selling if, assumpsit for money had and received will’ lie; but a' mere conversion, without a sale of the chattel, will not authorise thc owner to treat it as sold, and maintain as* sumpsit for its yalu.e.</p>