Nickles v. Carwile

Alabama Court of Appeals

Nickles v. Carwile

77 So. 1004, 16 Ala. App. 696

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 18, 1917

Docket7 Div. 445.

StatusPublished

This text of 77 So. 1004 (Nickles v. Carwile) 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

Nickles v. Carwile, 77 So. 1004, 16 Ala. App. 696 (Ala. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, P. J.

This case has been considered by this court in banc before preparation of this opinion, and the opinion then prevailed that the only question presented was one of fact, and, after careful consideration of the evidence, that the buggy, the value of which is ascertained to be $25, the piano, valued at $200, and the automobile, valued at $250; are the property of the defendant H. J. Car-wile, and subject to the plaintiff’s attachment; that the other property is the property of the claimant A. B. Carwile, and not subject to the defendant’s attachment. The judgment appealed from is therefore accordingly corrected, and, as corrected, is affirmed. One-half of the costs in this court and the trial court are taxed against appellant, and the other against appellee A. B. Carwile. Corrected and affirmed.

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

BROWN, P. J.

This case has been considered by this court in banc before preparation of this opinion, and the opinion then prevailed that the only question presented was one of fact, and, after careful consideration of the evidence, that the buggy, the value of which is ascertained to be $25, the piano, valued at $200, and the automobile, valued at $250; are the property of the defendant H. J. Car-wile, and subject to the plaintiff’s attachment; that the other property is the property of the claimant A. B. Carwile, and not subject to the defendant’s attachment. The judgment appealed from is therefore accordingly corrected, and, as corrected, is affirmed. One-half of the costs in this court and the trial court are taxed against appellant, and the other against appellee A. B. Carwile. Corrected and affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 So. 1004, 16 Ala. App. 696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nickles-v-carwile-alactapp-1917.