Bank of Henry v. Norton
78 So. 926, 201 Ala. 582, 1918 Ala. LEXIS 140
This text of 78 So. 926 (Bank of Henry v. Norton) 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
Bank of Henry v. Norton, 78 So. 926, 201 Ala. 582, 1918 Ala. LEXIS 140 (Ala. 1918).
Opinion
This was an action of trover for the conversion of three hogs. The trial,, which was by the court without a jury, resulted in a judgment for the defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff relied upon a mortgage title acquired' from one George Carter, and defendant relied upon a sale by one Emily Carter; the wife of. George Carter. There was abundant evidence,' if true, to support the title of either. There being no jury, the court, of course, had to hear all that was offered as evidence, before he could pass upon its relevancy or competency.
We find no prejudicial error in the rulings on the evidence, and are not prepared to say that the trial court erred in its findings or m the judgment rendered. There are involved no ques-, tions of law which merit discussion.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
78 So. 926, 201 Ala. 582, 1918 Ala. LEXIS 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-henry-v-norton-ala-1918.