Natzke v. Stuart

Alabama Court of Appeals

Natzke v. Stuart

75 So. 174, 16 Ala. App. 29, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 100

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 10, 1917

Docket1 Div. 238.

StatusPublished

This text of 75 So. 174 (Natzke v. Stuart) 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

Natzke v. Stuart, 75 So. 174, 16 Ala. App. 29, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 100 (Ala. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, P. J.

The agreed state of facts shows, not only that the plaintiff committed the possession of the cow in controversy to Golding, but that he gave Golding express authority to sell the cow; not only this, under the arrangement between plaintiff and Golding, Golding was given an interest in the property, or, at least, was to participate in the proceeds of the sale. The defendant had, on other occasions, bought of Golding, and on this occasion dealt with him as owner of the property, and without notice of his agency, or that plaintiff was owner of the cow. . ■

We hold that the principles decisive of this case are stated in the following authorities: Bent v. Jerkins, 112 Ala. 485, 20 South. 655; People’s Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Huttig Mfg. Co., 1 Ala. App. 399, 55 South. 929. And that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.

The judgment of the law and equity court is therefore reversed, and a judgment will be here rendered in favor of the defendant.

Reversed and rendered.

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

BROWN, P. J.

The agreed state of facts shows, not only that the plaintiff committed the possession of the cow in controversy to Golding, but that he gave Golding express authority to sell the cow; not only this, under the arrangement between plaintiff and Golding, Golding was given an interest in the property, or, at least, was to participate in the proceeds of the sale. The defendant had, on other occasions, bought of Golding, and on this occasion dealt with him as owner of the property, and without notice of his agency, or that plaintiff was owner of the cow. . ■

We hold that the principles decisive of this case are stated in the following authorities: Bent v. Jerkins, 112 Ala. 485, 20 South. 655; People’s Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Huttig Mfg. Co., 1 Ala. App. 399, 55 South. 929. And that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.

The judgment of the law and equity court is therefore reversed, and a judgment will be here rendered in favor of the defendant.

Reversed and rendered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 So. 174, 16 Ala. App. 29, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/natzke-v-stuart-alactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack