Thomas v. Posey

Alabama Court of Appeals

Thomas v. Posey

73 So. 747, 15 Ala. App. 419, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 212

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 19, 1916

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 73 So. 747 (Thomas v. Posey) 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

Thomas v. Posey, 73 So. 747, 15 Ala. App. 419, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 212 (Ala. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, J.

(1, 2) The uncontroverted evidence shows that the wagon in controversy was the property of the plaintiff, that she did not sign the mortgage held by the defendant, and that, he acquired no title or interest in the wagon through said mortgage. The mere fact that Ben Thomas, the husband of the plaintiff, used the wagon, would not impair plaintiff’s title, or *420 afford an inference that Ben owned the wagon. In such a case, the possession will be referred to the title. — Rollins v. State, 98 Ala. 79, 13 South. 2820.

The plaintiff’s motion for new trial should have been granted; and for the error committed by the court in refusing a new trial, the judgment of the city court is reversed. — Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630, 9 South. 738.

(3) That portion of the argument of defendant’s counsel excepted to was highly improper, and should have been excluded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

BROWN, J.

(1, 2) The uncontroverted evidence shows that the wagon in controversy was the property of the plaintiff, that she did not sign the mortgage held by the defendant, and that, he acquired no title or interest in the wagon through said mortgage. The mere fact that Ben Thomas, the husband of the plaintiff, used the wagon, would not impair plaintiff’s title, or *420 afford an inference that Ben owned the wagon. In such a case, the possession will be referred to the title. — Rollins v. State, 98 Ala. 79, 13 South. 2820.

The plaintiff’s motion for new trial should have been granted; and for the error committed by the court in refusing a new trial, the judgment of the city court is reversed. — Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630, 9 South. 738.

(3) That portion of the argument of defendant’s counsel excepted to was highly improper, and should have been excluded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 So. 747, 15 Ala. App. 419, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-posey-alactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack