Franklin v. Williamson

Alabama Court of Appeals

Franklin v. Williamson

91 So. 910, 18 Ala. App. 294, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 242

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 15, 1921

Docket7 Div. 712.

StatusPublished

This text of 91 So. 910 (Franklin v. Williamson) 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

Franklin v. Williamson, 91 So. 910, 18 Ala. App. 294, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 242 (Ala. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

[1, 2] Appellants, plaintiffs in the court below, brought suit against appellee to recover damages for the conversion of certain personal property, described in the complaint; and also to recover possession of said property in specie, with damages for its detention. Plaintiffs claimed as distributees of the estate of Blrs. Ida Franklin, their deceased mother, upon whose estate no administration had been had. The court charged the jury affirmatively in behalf of defendants. This action of the court must be sustained upon two theories, either of which is conclusive of. this appeal. First, for the reason that plaintiffs’ interest, if any, in the property sued for, was equitable only, and not having the legal title thereto could not maintain this action at law. Davenport v. Brooks, 92 Ala. 627, 9 South. 153; Teal v. Chancellor, 117 Ala. 612, 23 South. 651; Costephens v. Dean, 69 Ala. 385. Second, there -was no legal or competent evidence to sustain the allegations of the complaint, as the testimony of witness D. Franklin falls clearly wnthin the inhibition of section 4007, Code 1907.

There being no error, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

[1, 2] Appellants, plaintiffs in the court below, brought suit against appellee to recover damages for the conversion of certain personal property, described in the complaint; and also to recover possession of said property in specie, with damages for its detention. Plaintiffs claimed as distributees of the estate of Blrs. Ida Franklin, their deceased mother, upon whose estate no administration had been had. The court charged the jury affirmatively in behalf of defendants. This action of the court must be sustained upon two theories, either of which is conclusive of. this appeal. First, for the reason that plaintiffs’ interest, if any, in the property sued for, was equitable only, and not having the legal title thereto could not maintain this action at law. Davenport v. Brooks, 92 Ala. 627, 9 South. 153; Teal v. Chancellor, 117 Ala. 612, 23 South. 651; Costephens v. Dean, 69 Ala. 385. Second, there -was no legal or competent evidence to sustain the allegations of the complaint, as the testimony of witness D. Franklin falls clearly wnthin the inhibition of section 4007, Code 1907.

There being no error, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 So. 910, 18 Ala. App. 294, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklin-v-williamson-alactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack