Arledge v. J. D. Pittman Tractor Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Arledge v. J. D. Pittman Tractor Co.

181 So. 91, 236 Ala. 131, 1938 Ala. LEXIS 67

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedApril 28, 1938

Docket5 Div. 274.

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 181 So. 91 (Arledge v. J. D. Pittman Tractor Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arledge v. J. D. Pittman Tractor Co., 181 So. 91, 236 Ala. 131, 1938 Ala. LEXIS 67 (Ala. 1938).

Pincite

Opinions

BROWN, Justice.

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether or not the road supervisor of Chilton county, an office created by Local Act No. 3, approved March 10, 1936, Local Acts 1936, Ex.Sess. pp. 4-8,-can, in his official capacity, maintain trover for the conversion, or trespass for the wrongful taking of an article of road machinery, the property of the county, against the wrongdoer ?

There is no contention that the statute creating the office by express provision gives him the right to sue, but the contention is that by section 6 of said act, page' 6, it is provided: “That said Road Supervisor shall be the custodian of all machinery, equipment, supplies or materials owned by the County under this act and shall be required and liable to account therefor to the Commissioners Court of Chilton County, Alabama, upon written demand by them, and shall render an account therefor at the expiration of his term of office,” and therefore he has such property in the chattels in custody as authorizes him to maintain such actions under the provisions of section 5668, of the Code 1923. (Italics supplied.)

Section 5668, Code provides, that: “Mere possession of a chattel, if without title, or wrongfully, will give a right to action for any interference therewith* except as against the true owner or the person wrongfully deprived of possession.” ■

This statute, while awkwardly expressed, is merely declaratory of the common law that possession is evidence of title and proof of possession in the plaintiff will sustain an action as against, a wrongdoer without title who injures, converts, or takes chattels from such possession. Birmingham Southern R. Co. v. Goodwyn, 202 Ala. 599, 81 So. 339; Id., 17 Ala.App. 34, 81 So. 342.

The custody of the road supervisor as such is the county’s possession as a matter of law, and such custody does not authorize him to maintain an action for damages for conversion or trespass. The county is the proper party to sue. Lewis v. Lee County, 66 Ala. 480.

The affirmative charge for the defendant was given without error.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BROWN, Justice.

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether or not the road supervisor of Chilton county, an office created by Local Act No. 3, approved March 10, 1936, Local Acts 1936, Ex.Sess. pp. 4-8,-can, in his official capacity, maintain trover for the conversion, or trespass for the wrongful taking of an article of road machinery, the property of the county, against the wrongdoer ?

There is no contention that the statute creating the office by express provision gives him the right to sue, but the contention is that by section 6 of said act, page' 6, it is provided: “That said Road Supervisor shall be the custodian of all machinery, equipment, supplies or materials owned by the County under this act and shall be required and liable to account therefor to the Commissioners Court of Chilton County, Alabama, upon written demand by them, and shall render an account therefor at the expiration of his term of office,” and therefore he has such property in the chattels in custody as authorizes him to maintain such actions under the provisions of section 5668, of the Code 1923. (Italics supplied.)

Section 5668, Code provides, that: “Mere possession of a chattel, if without title, or wrongfully, will give a right to action for any interference therewith* except as against the true owner or the person wrongfully deprived of possession.” ■

This statute, while awkwardly expressed, is merely declaratory of the common law that possession is evidence of title and proof of possession in the plaintiff will sustain an action as against, a wrongdoer without title who injures, converts, or takes chattels from such possession. Birmingham Southern R. Co. v. Goodwyn, 202 Ala. 599, 81 So. 339; Id., 17 Ala.App. 34, 81 So. 342.

The custody of the road supervisor as such is the county’s possession as a matter of law, and such custody does not authorize him to maintain an action for damages for conversion or trespass. The county is the proper party to sue. Lewis v. Lee County, 66 Ala. 480.

The affirmative charge for the defendant was given without error.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 So. 91, 236 Ala. 131, 1938 Ala. LEXIS 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arledge-v-j-d-pittman-tractor-co-ala-1938.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack