Huff v. Dyer

Alabama Court of Appeals

Huff v. Dyer

77 So. 926, 16 Ala. App. 332, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 15

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 22, 1918

Docket5 Div. 240.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 77 So. 926 (Huff v. Dyer) 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

Huff v. Dyer, 77 So. 926, 16 Ala. App. 332, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 15 (Ala. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

[1,2] The only errors insisted upon in appellant’s brief are that the court erred in refusing to give the affirmative charge and charges, to the effect that the plaintiff could not recover without actual possession having been shown. There was *333 evidence tending to sustain the plaintiff’s right to recover, as stated in the several counts of the complaint, to which demurrers were not sustained or confessed, and hence the general charge was properly refused. Two of the counts were in case, under which proof of possession was not essential to a recovery, and hence the other charges requested by the defendant were properly refused.

The other assignments of error are either not insisted upon or waived. There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

[1,2] The only errors insisted upon in appellant’s brief are that the court erred in refusing to give the affirmative charge and charges, to the effect that the plaintiff could not recover without actual possession having been shown. There was *333 evidence tending to sustain the plaintiff’s right to recover, as stated in the several counts of the complaint, to which demurrers were not sustained or confessed, and hence the general charge was properly refused. Two of the counts were in case, under which proof of possession was not essential to a recovery, and hence the other charges requested by the defendant were properly refused.

The other assignments of error are either not insisted upon or waived. There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 So. 926, 16 Ala. App. 332, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huff-v-dyer-alactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack