# Kelly v. Cook

> Alabama Court of Appeals · October 19, 1916 · 15 Ala. App. 350

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9825031

## Case

- **Full name:** Kelly v. Cook. Conversion.
- **Court:** Alabama Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** October 19, 1916
- **Citations:** 15 Ala. App. 350; 73 So. 220; 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 197
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Brown
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9825031

## Opinion text

ON REHEARING.
On the original consideration of the case, as appears from the opinion heretofore promulgated, the question asked the plaintiff by her counsel on the rebuttal examniation was treated as referring to the defendant in the case. This premise was not correct, and the contention of appellant that it referred to the witness Rose McKinley is granted.
(6) The further contention of the appellant that his objection was well taken and should have been sustained is likewise granted. — Sexton v. State, supra, 69 South. 342 .
(7) However, while the ruling of the court in this respect was erroneous, we do not think it calls for a reversal of the judgment. The answer of the witness amounted to a refusal to answer on the ground that it would expose the character of the plaintiff. In short, the answer was not responsive; and, no doubt, if motion had been made to exclude this answer, it would have been excluded.
Further, the only fact testified to by the witness McKinley was a conversation embodied in a predicate laid to impeach Mrs. Cook’s testimony.
It is not probable that the jury were influenced by the statement of the witness Mrs. Cook in rebuttal, and the ruling of the court, while erroneous, must be presumed without injury.
Application overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9825031. Public record. Not legal advice.