Goodgame v. Sanders

Supreme Court of Alabama

Goodgame v. Sanders

140 Ala. 247

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedNovember 15, 1903

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 140 Ala. 247 (Goodgame v. Sanders) 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

Goodgame v. Sanders, 140 Ala. 247 (Ala. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

TYSON, J.

Section 1017 of the Code requiring contracts for the conditional sale of personal property, etc., etc., other than of railroad rolling stock, to be recorded is not in force in Jefferson county, and has not been since February 21, 1899. — Acts, 1898-99, p. 1120.

The plaintiff’s right to recover, in this case, therefore, depends upon whether his vendor had title to the cow, he being in no position to invoke the doctrine of bona ]fide purchaser for value.—Weinstein v. Freyer, 93 Ala. 257.

The plaintiff predicates his right to the cow sued for upon the title of one Henry McFerrin from whom he says he purchased it. McFerrin claims to have derived [249]*249his title by descent from his wife, who purchased it from the defendant’s bailor, Mrs. Keller.

It is shown, without dispute, that Mrs. Keller originally owned the cow and sold it to Mrs. McFerrin. Mrs. Keller testified positively that she retained the title to the cow until paid for and that the purchase money was never paid. The only attempt by plaintiff to contradict this testimony is found in a written showing for witness McFerrin, plaintiff’s vendor,,the substance of which is that the wife of the- Avitness bought the coav from Mrs. Keller; “that she OAvned. said cow at the time of her death and that the cow Avas a part of her estate; that witness sold the coav to the plaintiff in December, 1901; that it was his property at the time of the sale, and there was no lien of any kind on it.”

This testimony affording an inference merely that the title to the cow Avas not retained, or if retained, that the purchase price had been paid, is, in our opinion, insufficient to overcome the positive testimony of Mrs. Keller, especially in vieAV of the fact that the burden was upon plaintiff to show title in Mrs. McFerrin.

The case having been tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, the judgment will be' reversed, and one Avill be here rendered for defendant.

Reversed and rendered.

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

TYSON, J.

Section 1017 of the Code requiring contracts for the conditional sale of personal property, etc., etc., other than of railroad rolling stock, to be recorded is not in force in Jefferson county, and has not been since February 21, 1899. — Acts, 1898-99, p. 1120.

The plaintiff’s right to recover, in this case, therefore, depends upon whether his vendor had title to the cow, he being in no position to invoke the doctrine of bona ]fide purchaser for value.—Weinstein v. Freyer, 93 Ala. 257.

The plaintiff predicates his right to the cow sued for upon the title of one Henry McFerrin from whom he says he purchased it. McFerrin claims to have derived [249]*249his title by descent from his wife, who purchased it from the defendant’s bailor, Mrs. Keller.

It is shown, without dispute, that Mrs. Keller originally owned the cow and sold it to Mrs. McFerrin. Mrs. Keller testified positively that she retained the title to the cow until paid for and that the purchase money was never paid. The only attempt by plaintiff to contradict this testimony is found in a written showing for witness McFerrin, plaintiff’s vendor,,the substance of which is that the wife of the- Avitness bought the coav from Mrs. Keller; “that she OAvned. said cow at the time of her death and that the cow Avas a part of her estate; that witness sold the coav to the plaintiff in December, 1901; that it was his property at the time of the sale, and there was no lien of any kind on it.”

This testimony affording an inference merely that the title to the cow Avas not retained, or if retained, that the purchase price had been paid, is, in our opinion, insufficient to overcome the positive testimony of Mrs. Keller, especially in vieAV of the fact that the burden was upon plaintiff to show title in Mrs. McFerrin.

The case having been tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, the judgment will be' reversed, and one Avill be here rendered for defendant.

Reversed and rendered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 Ala. 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodgame-v-sanders-ala-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack