Childs v. Thompson

Alabama Court of Appeals

Childs v. Thompson

104 So. 287, 20 Ala. App. 594, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 103

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 12, 1925

Docket4 Div. 64.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 104 So. 287 (Childs v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Childs v. Thompson, 104 So. 287, 20 Ala. App. 594, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 103 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

This was a statutory detinue suit by appellant (plaintiff in the court below) against appellee (defendant) for a certain mule and wagon. From a directed verdict in favor of the defendant, plaintiff brings this appeal. >

The plaintiff, suing as the administrator of the estate of Lewis Thompson, deceased, introduced evidence which showed that the property sued for was a part of the personal property of his intestate; that said intestate was a citizen of Alabama, and died leaving personal property of the total yalue of less than $300; that there were left surviving said intestate, the widow, Mary Thompson, and a minor daughter; also that plaintiff had never been in possession of the property sued for. The defendant introduced ho evidence. The court gave to the jury the general affirmative charge in favor of the defendant. This was correct. Phillips v. First National Bank of Bessemer, 208 Ala. 589, 94 So. 801; McIntosh v. Parker, 82 Ala. 238, 3 So. 19; Wilson v. Johnson, 152 Ala. 614, 44 So. 539. The trial court properly overruled appellant’s motion for a new trial. McLeod v. Shelly M. & I. Co., 108 Ala. 81, 19 So. 926.

A consideration of the other assignments of error is unnecessary, because the rulings underlying same'could not affect the above conclusions.

Finding no prejudicial error in the record, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

RICE, J.

This was a statutory detinue suit by appellant (plaintiff in the court below) against appellee (defendant) for a certain mule and wagon. From a directed verdict in favor of the defendant, plaintiff brings this appeal. >

The plaintiff, suing as the administrator of the estate of Lewis Thompson, deceased, introduced evidence which showed that the property sued for was a part of the personal property of his intestate; that said intestate was a citizen of Alabama, and died leaving personal property of the total yalue of less than $300; that there were left surviving said intestate, the widow, Mary Thompson, and a minor daughter; also that plaintiff had never been in possession of the property sued for. The defendant introduced ho evidence. The court gave to the jury the general affirmative charge in favor of the defendant. This was correct. Phillips v. First National Bank of Bessemer, 208 Ala. 589, 94 So. 801; McIntosh v. Parker, 82 Ala. 238, 3 So. 19; Wilson v. Johnson, 152 Ala. 614, 44 So. 539. The trial court properly overruled appellant’s motion for a new trial. McLeod v. Shelly M. & I. Co., 108 Ala. 81, 19 So. 926.

A consideration of the other assignments of error is unnecessary, because the rulings underlying same'could not affect the above conclusions.

Finding no prejudicial error in the record, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 So. 287, 20 Ala. App. 594, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/childs-v-thompson-alactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack