Johnson v. Herron

141 So. 360, 25 Ala. App. 83, 1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 91
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided March 22, 1932·No. 8 Div. 409.·Published

Opinion

RICE, J.

This was a detinue suit brought by appellee against appellant for the recovery of the possession of a certain Pord truck.

We have no fault to find with the action of the court in ordering a writ of detinue to be substituted in the cause, the testimony sufficiently showing the loss of the original, etc. Code 1923, § 10132.

It appears, without dispute, that appellee held a valid unpaid mortgage upon the identical truck sued for; and his right to recover is not shown to be controverted by any evidence in the case. Tallassee Motor Co. et al. v. Gilliland Bros., 22 Ala. App. 21, 112 So. 758; certiorari denied 216 Ala. 257, 112 So. 759.

This being true, any technical errors committed during the progress of the trial — -we not saying such were, or were not, committed —would not suffice for a reversal of the judgment appealed from. Supreme Court Rule 45.

It is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Johnson v. Herron, 141 So. 360, 25 Ala. App. 83, 1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 91 (Ala. Ct. App. 1932).

141 So. 360 (Johnson v. Herron) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tallassee Motor Co. v. Gilliland Bros.
112 So. 758 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1927)