Dusenberry v. Black

Supreme Court of Alabama

Dusenberry v. Black

99 So. 910, 211 Ala. 153, 1924 Ala. LEXIS 456

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedApril 24, 1924

Docket4 Div. 122.

StatusPublished

This text of 99 So. 910 (Dusenberry v. Black) 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

Dusenberry v. Black, 99 So. 910, 211 Ala. 153, 1924 Ala. LEXIS 456 (Ala. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

SAYRE, J.

At the suit of appellee a writ of attachment was levied on the relic of an automobile, some plantation stock, and corn. Appellants interposed a claim. The trial court, hearing the ease without a jury, found with plaintiff that the property levied upon was the property of defendant and liable to the satisfaction of plaintiff’s debt.

The single proposition urged in the brief for claimants, appellants, is that there was no evidence to sustain the judgment rendered. Plaintiff’s evidence was ample to show that defendant had been and was at the time of the levy in possession and control of the property levied upon, and at other times claimed to own the same and exercised customary acts of ownership. This, to say the least, sufficed to shift to claimants the burden of establishing their right. Wollner & Lowenstein v. Lehman Durr & Co., 85 Ala. 274, 4 South. 643; Jones v. Franklin, 81 Ala. 161, 1 South. 199. Defendant testified that in his possession and control of the property he acted merely as agent for his sister, one of the claimants, who, he said, owned a 95 per cent, interest in the property and the other claimants, but the claimants did not appear as witnesses. Various considerations affecting the credibility of defendant’s testimony appeared in evidence, and we are by no means satisfied that the trial court committed error in giving judgment as it did.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER and MILLER, JJ., concur.

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

SAYRE, J.

At the suit of appellee a writ of attachment was levied on the relic of an automobile, some plantation stock, and corn. Appellants interposed a claim. The trial court, hearing the ease without a jury, found with plaintiff that the property levied upon was the property of defendant and liable to the satisfaction of plaintiff’s debt.

The single proposition urged in the brief for claimants, appellants, is that there was no evidence to sustain the judgment rendered. Plaintiff’s evidence was ample to show that defendant had been and was at the time of the levy in possession and control of the property levied upon, and at other times claimed to own the same and exercised customary acts of ownership. This, to say the least, sufficed to shift to claimants the burden of establishing their right. Wollner & Lowenstein v. Lehman Durr & Co., 85 Ala. 274, 4 South. 643; Jones v. Franklin, 81 Ala. 161, 1 South. 199. Defendant testified that in his possession and control of the property he acted merely as agent for his sister, one of the claimants, who, he said, owned a 95 per cent, interest in the property and the other claimants, but the claimants did not appear as witnesses. Various considerations affecting the credibility of defendant’s testimony appeared in evidence, and we are by no means satisfied that the trial court committed error in giving judgment as it did.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER and MILLER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 So. 910, 211 Ala. 153, 1924 Ala. LEXIS 456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dusenberry-v-black-ala-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack