E. E. Forbes Piano Co. v. Wilson
This text of 39 So. 654 (E. E. Forbes Piano Co. v. Wilson) 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.
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
39 So. 654, 144 Ala. 586, 1905 Ala. LEXIS 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/e-e-forbes-piano-co-v-wilson-ala-1905.