Foy v. Cochran

88 Ala. 353
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided November 15, 1889·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

STONE, C. J.

It is not disputed in this case, and is clearly proved, that at the time Mrs. Cornelia J. Cochran sold and conveyed the mule in controversy to Foy, the plaintiff in this action, Mrs. Willie P. Cochran, the defendant, had the mule in possession, claiming to be the owner thereof,

[355]*355This being the case, no matter what right or title Mrs. Cornelia J. may have held, she could not convey to Foy any right which would maintain this action. A right to sue for property adversely held, can not be the subject of legal transfer.- — Huddleston v. Huey, 73 Ala. 215; 1 Brick. Dig. 52, § 44.

The principle announced above renders the consideration of all other questions unnecessary, as under no circumstances can the plaintiff maintain this suit.

Affirmed.

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

Foy v. Cochran, 88 Ala. 353 (Ala. 1889).

88 Ala. 353 (Foy v. Cochran) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Richards v. Montgomery
160 So. 706 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1935)
Commercial Casualty Ins. Co. v. Isbell Nat. Bank
134 So. 810 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1931)
Spurgeon & Dozier Co. v. McCall
85 So. 480 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1920)
Sylacauga Lodge, No. 200 v. McGhee
81 So. 689 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1919)
McCay v. Parks
79 So. 119 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1918)
Gilbreath v. Copeland
77 So. 58 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1917)
Pope & Co. v. Union Warehouse Co.
70 So. 159 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1915)
Hood v. Com. Germania T. & S. Bank of New Orleans
67 So. 721 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1914)