Woods v. Dunlap

Supreme Court of Alabama

Woods v. Dunlap

73 Ala. 169

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedDecember 15, 1882

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 73 Ala. 169 (Woods v. Dunlap) 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

Woods v. Dunlap, 73 Ala. 169 (Ala. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

STONE, J.

— The testimony'in this case, as to whicli there is no controversy, shows that the plaintiff had some money, her statutory separate estate, which was invested by her in a purchase of cattle. Subsequently the cattle were exchanged for a mule and sorghum mill, and later these were exchanged for the wagon and oxen, for the conversion of which this action is brought. Some of the exchanges were made by Mrs. Woods, and some by her husband, acting for her, and with her authority. No writings were, executed, evidencing either exchange. These being the uncontroverted facts, under the authority of Pollak & Co. v. Graves, 72 Ala. 347, we are constrained to hold that the title to the wagon and' oxen never vested in Mrs. Woods, and she can not maintain this action.

A mortgage and some declarations of Woods, made while [171]*171the. property was in his possession, and each tending to show acts of asserted ownership, were given in evidence against the objection of appellant. There was no error in this. — 1 Brick. Dig. 843, § 558.

There is but one exception to the entire charge. Some of its propositions are in strict accord with the principles above declared. Such general exception is insufficient, if any separable paragraph or proposition of the charge correctly declares the law. — Elliott v. Stocks, 67 Ala. 336; Gray v. The State, 63 Ala. 66; Mayor v. Rumsey, Ib. 352.

Affirmed.

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

STONE, J.

— The testimony'in this case, as to whicli there is no controversy, shows that the plaintiff had some money, her statutory separate estate, which was invested by her in a purchase of cattle. Subsequently the cattle were exchanged for a mule and sorghum mill, and later these were exchanged for the wagon and oxen, for the conversion of which this action is brought. Some of the exchanges were made by Mrs. Woods, and some by her husband, acting for her, and with her authority. No writings were, executed, evidencing either exchange. These being the uncontroverted facts, under the authority of Pollak & Co. v. Graves, 72 Ala. 347, we are constrained to hold that the title to the wagon and' oxen never vested in Mrs. Woods, and she can not maintain this action.

A mortgage and some declarations of Woods, made while [171]*171the. property was in his possession, and each tending to show acts of asserted ownership, were given in evidence against the objection of appellant. There was no error in this. — 1 Brick. Dig. 843, § 558.

There is but one exception to the entire charge. Some of its propositions are in strict accord with the principles above declared. Such general exception is insufficient, if any separable paragraph or proposition of the charge correctly declares the law. — Elliott v. Stocks, 67 Ala. 336; Gray v. The State, 63 Ala. 66; Mayor v. Rumsey, Ib. 352.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 Ala. 169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woods-v-dunlap-ala-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack