Dardess v. SouthTrust Bank
In Dardess v. SouthTrust Bank, 555 So. 2d 746, 750 (Ala. 1989) SouthTrust Bank sued Dardess on a promissory note, and Dardess counterclaimed, alleging breach of contract.
The trial court gave the jury instructions as to two alternative verdicts: The jury could find in favor of SouthTrust on its complaint and against Dardess on his counterclaim, or it could find in favor of Dardess on his counterclaim and against SouthTrust on its complaint.
The Court stated that the instruction and verdict did not respond to the issues raised in the case, because, under the facts presented, the jury could have found for SouthTrust on its claim on the note and for Dardess on its counterclaim alleging breach of contract. Thus, the failure to give the jury the third option was reversible error.