Louisville & Nashville R. R. v. Scheinert

47 So. 293, 156 Ala. 411, 1908 Ala. LEXIS 107

• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama
• Decided: June 30, 1908
• Status: Published

Opinions

DENSON, J.

There can be no doubt that the fifth count of the complaint is in trover for the conversion of goods by a Avarehouseman; nor can there be any doubt that the evidence fails to afford a reasonable inference that the defendant is guilty of a conversion. .Hence the court erred in refusing the fifth charge requested in writing by the defendant. — Davis & Sons v. Hurt, 114 Ala. 146, 21 South. 468; Baker v. Malone & son. 126 Ala. 510, 28 South. 631; Alabama, etc., Co. v. Kidd, 35 Ala. 220; Abraham v. Nunn, 42 Ala. 51; Traylor & Co. v. Hughes, 88 Ala. 617, 7 South. 159; Johnson v. Couillard, 4 Allen (Mass.) 446; Rice v. Clark, 8 Vt. 109; Hawkins v. Hoffman, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 586, 41 Am. Dec. 767; Bowman v. Eaton, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 528; Irish v. Cloyes, 8 Vt. 30, 30 Am. Dec. 446; Baker v. Wheeler, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 505, 24 Am. Dec. 66; Hallenbake v. Fish, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 547, 24 Am. Dec. 88.

Reversed and remanded.

Tyson, O. J., and Haralson, Dowdell, Simpson, and Anderson, JJ., concur.