Posey v. Gamble

Supreme Court of Alabama

Posey v. Gamble

47 So. 569, 157 Ala. 655, 1908 Ala. LEXIS 166

DecidedNovember 19, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 47 So. 569 (Posey v. Gamble) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Posey v. Gamble, 47 So. 569, 157 Ala. 655, 1908 Ala. LEXIS 166 (Ala. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

ANDERSON, J.

— Many of the assignments of error relates to charges upon the law as applicable to the plea of res judicata (No. 3), and which need not be considered, as this issue could have been eliminated by the trial court, as the evidence did not support said plea. The plea avers that plaintiff bought the cow, if at all, after the institution of the former suit, December 22, 1903, and the undisputed evidence shows that he bought'her from O. L. Gamble prior to the institution of said suit. Regardless, however, of this issue, there Avas a. sharp conflict in the evidence as to Avhether the defendant or O. L. Gamble OAvned the cow. The defendant testified to having raised her from a calf. “Nobody else has ever owned her but myself.” She also testified that she Avas in possession before the plaintiff’s vendor, O. L. Gamble, ever got her. It Avas therefore a question for the jury to determine as to Avhether or not the cow belonged to the plaintiff or the defendant.

The trial court erred in giving charges 1, 2, and 4, requested by the plaintiff, as they ignore the defendant’s proof of title, irrespective of the former judgment, and assume that the plaintiff should recover if he bought the coav from O. L. Gamble before the first suit was brought, thus assuming that O. L. Gamble owned the coav and ignoring the defendant’s evidence of ownership.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Tyson. G. .L, and Dowdell and McClellan, JJ., concur.

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

ANDERSON, J.

— Many of the assignments of error relates to charges upon the law as applicable to the plea of res judicata (No. 3), and which need not be considered, as this issue could have been eliminated by the trial court, as the evidence did not support said plea. The plea avers that plaintiff bought the cow, if at all, after the institution of the former suit, December 22, 1903, and the undisputed evidence shows that he bought'her from O. L. Gamble prior to the institution of said suit. Regardless, however, of this issue, there Avas a. sharp conflict in the evidence as to Avhether the defendant or O. L. Gamble OAvned the cow. The defendant testified to having raised her from a calf. “Nobody else has ever owned her but myself.” She also testified that she Avas in possession before the plaintiff’s vendor, O. L. Gamble, ever got her. It Avas therefore a question for the jury to determine as to Avhether or not the cow belonged to the plaintiff or the defendant.

The trial court erred in giving charges 1, 2, and 4, requested by the plaintiff, as they ignore the defendant’s proof of title, irrespective of the former judgment, and assume that the plaintiff should recover if he bought the coav from O. L. Gamble before the first suit was brought, thus assuming that O. L. Gamble owned the coav and ignoring the defendant’s evidence of ownership.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Tyson. G. .L, and Dowdell and McClellan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 So. 569, 157 Ala. 655, 1908 Ala. LEXIS 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/posey-v-gamble-ala-1908.