Alexiou v. Christu

• Decision Date: 29 January 1970
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 606
• Citation: 285 Ala. 346,232 So.2d 595
• Parties: Harry ALEXIOU, Fine Dining, Inc., a Corp. v. Nicholas CHRISTU and Despina N. Christu.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 595

232 So.2d 595

285 Ala. 346

Harry ALEXIOU, Fine Dining, Inc., a Corp. v. Nicholas CHRISTU and Despina N. Christu.

6 Div. 606.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 29, 1970.

Rehearing Denied March 26, 1970.

Whitmire, Morton & Coleman, Birmingham, for appellants.

Bainbridge & Mims, Birmingham, for appellees.

SIMPSON, Justice.

This is an appeal by the defendants in a lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs claiming, after the complaint was amended, $643.50 due for money received by the defendants to the use of the plaintiffs and an additional $15,000 damages for the conversion of certain restaurant equipment belonging to the plaintiffs.

The case was tried to a jury which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. The verdict was in the following form:

'We, the jury, find for the plaintiffs and against the defendants and assess their damages at Twenty Six Hundred and 43/100 ($2,643.50) (sic) Dollars, * * *.'

The trial court entered a judgment on the verdict in favor of the plaintiffs in the amount of Twenty Six Hundred and 43/100 ($2,600.43) Dollars.

This appeal followed.

There are only three assignments of error. The first takes the position that the court below erred in allowing Mr. Christu to testify as to the value of the equipment claimed to be converted by the defendants.

The undisputed facts were that the plaintiffs owned a tract of land in Jefferson County on which was situated a restaurant. In 1958 they leased the land and restaurant to third parties, not here involved. A list of restaurant equipment let under the lease was attached to and made a part of the lease as Exhibit A. This lease was transferred to the defendants in 1959. It provided in part as follows:

'* * * All furniture and fixtures, kitchen and dining equipment purchased by Lessee and placed in said building are to remain the property of the Lessee, * * *.

'10. It is further agreed between the Lessor and the Lessee that when in the opinion of the Lessee the furniture and fixtures, dining and kitchen equipment now owned by the Lessor, and as shown on the attached list of equipment, is worn out and unusable by the Lessee, and said Lessee shall have the right to trade or exchange said worn out equipment for new equipment and the difference between the amount allowed on the old equipment and the purchase price of said new equipment so purchased by the Lessee shall be and remain the Lessee's property provided, however, that the amount allowed on the property or equipment traded in shall forthwith be paid by the Lessee to the Lessor.'

The plaintiffs contended, and it was not disputed, that the defendants had traded in a cash register which was the property of the Lessor and had received $643.50 credit on the trade, which under the provisions of the lease just quoted belonged to the plaintiffs.

In 1965 the State condemned the property upon which the restaurant was located and the lessees were required to vacate. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants took away certain items of equipment listed on the original Exhibit A to the lease.

In defense, Mr. Harry Alexiou, the only defendant to testify, said that he never made an inventory of the equipment when he took the premises over from the third parties, that he did not know how much of the equipment belonged to Mr. Christu, and that he thought Mr. Christu had gotten everything that belonged to him. Mr. Christu introduced a list of equipment which he claimed had been taken away by the defendants. Some items were circled, which Mr. Christu admitted had been returned to him.

In the first assignment of error the defendants argue that the trial court erred in overruling their objection to the following question put to Mr. Christu:

"Tell the jury what in your opinion was the fair and reasonable market value of the equipment on your list here, excluding what you have circled out."

There was no error in allowing the witness to respond to this question. It was not disputed by the defendants that Mr. Christu was the owner of the property involved. Ownership of personalty qualifies the owner to testify as to the value of such items. In Ala. Great Southern R. R. Co. v. Russell, 35 Ala.App. 345, 48 So.2d 239, it was said:

'It is well settled by our decisions that the owner of personalty may testify as to its value, whether he is generally familiar with such values or not. Ward v. Reynolds, 32 Ala. 384; Moss v. State, 146 Ala. 686, 40 So. 340; Southern Ry. Co. v. Morris, 143 Ala. 628, 42 So. 17; Alabama Power Co. v. Armour & Co., 207 Ala. 15, 92 So. 111; Lincoln Reserve Life Ins. Co. v....