E. E. Forbes Piano Co. v. Wilson

39 So. 654, 144 Ala. 586, 1905 Ala. LEXIS 64
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided December 21, 1905·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

TYSON, J.

Action of detinue for a piano.

The special plea interposed by defendant was bad and the demurrer should have been sustained to it. The mere bringing of an action by plaintiff for the purchase price of a piano and recovering a judgment therefor, which is not averred to have been paid, does not operate to divest the plaintiff of its title to the property. This point was expressly decided by this court in Tomason v. Lewis, 103 Ala. 426, 15 So. Rep. 830. There is a dictum in Davis v. Millings, 141 Ala. 378, 37 So. Rep. 737, consisting of a quotation from the Encyclopedia of Law which is opposed to this view, but which is not the law in this jurisdiction.

Beversed and remanded.

Haralson, Dowdell, Simpson and Denson, JJ., concurring.

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

E. E. Forbes Piano Co. v. Wilson, 39 So. 654, 144 Ala. 586, 1905 Ala. LEXIS 64 (Ala. 1905).

39 So. 654 (E. E. Forbes Piano Co. v. Wilson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bolinger v. National Cash Register Co.
3 N.E.2d 640 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1936)
Commercial Inv. Trust, Inc. v. East
117 So. 160 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1927)
Cable Co. of Alabama v. Stewart
191 F. 699 (Fifth Circuit, 1911)