William Franklin Jenkins

This case involved a suit on a promissory note against two principals (who defaulted) and two partners who had signed as sureties or indorsers for the principals' benefit. The court held that the principals were not required parties to the sureties' appeal from the denial of a new trial. On the merits, the court ruled that a partner cannot bind the partnership or the other partner to a suretyship or accommodation indorsement outside the scope of partnership business without consent or valid ratification, and no such ratification occurred here because the non-signing partner received no benefit and the payees suffered no qualifying detriment. The signing partner was estopped from denying liability, so the judgment against him was affirmed, but the judgment against the non-signing partner was reversed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a personal injury lawsuit brought by the plaintiff against the defendant for damages arising from an automobile collision, in which the plaintiff alleged negligence based on excessive speed and other improper operation at a street intersection. The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff $1500, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the verdict was supported by evidence of the plaintiff's permanent injuries, including bruises, prolonged pain, confinement to home, and loss of arm function, and was not excessive as a matter of law. It further ruled that the defendant's post-accident statement offering to pay for treatment was admissible as an admission of liability, that various jury instructions on brakes, speed limits, and ordinances were either proper or harmless, and that witness testimony on speed had probative value despite being described as a guess.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff who sued two physicians for negligence after they allegedly cut and severed her sphincter ani muscle during an operation for hemorrhoids, claiming the act was unnecessary and fell below the standard of care required of surgeons. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff after a jury verdict, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that the petition adequately stated a cause of action and that evidence of the physicians' actions, the plaintiff's condition, and expert opinions supported the finding of liability. The court upheld numerous evidentiary rulings and jury instructions as non-prejudicial, noting that the burden of proof was properly placed on the plaintiff and that the verdict amount was not excessive. It rejected arguments that amendments to the pleadings or certain testimony warranted a mistrial or reversal.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

This case involved a personal injury lawsuit in which the plaintiff, struck and injured by the defendant's automobile in a city street, alleged various acts of negligence including excessive speed. The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed, challenging the admission of the driver's post-collision statements (including a reference to insurance) as part of the res gestae, the sufficiency of the jury instructions on negligence and contributory negligence, and other evidentiary and pleading rulings. The court held that the statements were properly admissible because they were spontaneous and made immediately after the collision while the injured party was still on the ground, and that the jury instructions adequately covered the issues without conflict or prejudice. It further ruled that the evidence supported the verdict, that the petition stated a valid cause of action, and that no mistrial or new trial was required. The judgment was affirmed.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case is a proceeding by Mrs. Lizzie Musslewhite, as heir to her deceased father L. K. Drawdy, to establish a lost deed allegedly executed by James A. Drawdy conveying property to the father. The Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict and judgment that established a copy of the deed. The ruling rested on findings that evidence sufficiently proved the original deed's existence, execution, and loss, permitting secondary evidence of its contents, and that certain evidentiary rulings were correct, including admission of testimony about the defendant's tax return of the property as part of the decedent's estate. One potential error in excluding the defendant's denial of the deed's execution was cured when the same testimony was later admitted without objection, and rules barring testimony against a deceased person did not apply to an heir suing in her own right.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a suit by Shapleigh Hardware Co. against McCoy & Son, alleged to be a partnership of E. L. McCoy and B. L. McCoy, to recover the price of goods sold on account. Although a jury found in favor of R. L. McCoy on his claim that he was not a partner, the court held that the evidence required a verdict against him. R. L. McCoy admitted knowing that his son was using his name in the business and that he had taken some steps to stop it, but he made no effort to notify creditors or the public of his non-involvement until after the goods were sold. Because the plaintiff’s salesman relied on the apparent partnership when extending credit and received no notice of dissolution prior to the sales, the court reversed the denial of a new trial.

business & regulatory