Cleckler v. Childress

Alabama Court of Appeals

Cleckler v. Childress

80 So. 136, 16 Ala. App. 562, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 239

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 12, 1918

Docket5 Div. 273.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 80 So. 136 (Cleckler v. Childress) 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

Cleckler v. Childress, 80 So. 136, 16 Ala. App. 562, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 239 (Ala. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, P. J.

[1, 2] The indorsement on the mortgage offered in evidence by the plaintiff does not purport to transfer the mortgage to the plaintiff, and while it may be sufficient in connection with other evidence to invest the plaintiff with the equitable title, it does not invest the plaintiff with such title as would authorize him to maintain an action of trespass for the wrongful taking, or trover for the wrongful conversion of the property embraced in the mortgage. Sanders v. Rogers, 77 South. 69; 1 The evidence as to the sale of the mare by S. P. Cleckler to the plaintiff is not without dispute or room for adverse inference to the plaintiff’s right of recovery. This evidence was given ore tenus and the trial court was in a better position to judge of the credibility of the witnesses than we are, and when the findings of the trial court are accorded the weight of the verdict of a jury, we do not feel warranted in disturbing the judgment based upon such findings. Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403, 72 South. 52; Finney v. Studebaker, 196 Ala. 422, 72 South. 54.

Affirmed.

1

Ante, p. 231.

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

BROWN, P. J.

[1, 2] The indorsement on the mortgage offered in evidence by the plaintiff does not purport to transfer the mortgage to the plaintiff, and while it may be sufficient in connection with other evidence to invest the plaintiff with the equitable title, it does not invest the plaintiff with such title as would authorize him to maintain an action of trespass for the wrongful taking, or trover for the wrongful conversion of the property embraced in the mortgage. Sanders v. Rogers, 77 South. 69; 1 The evidence as to the sale of the mare by S. P. Cleckler to the plaintiff is not without dispute or room for adverse inference to the plaintiff’s right of recovery. This evidence was given ore tenus and the trial court was in a better position to judge of the credibility of the witnesses than we are, and when the findings of the trial court are accorded the weight of the verdict of a jury, we do not feel warranted in disturbing the judgment based upon such findings. Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403, 72 South. 52; Finney v. Studebaker, 196 Ala. 422, 72 South. 54.

Affirmed.

1

Ante, p. 231.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 So. 136, 16 Ala. App. 562, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cleckler-v-childress-alactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack