Allen v. Hamilton
| Decision Date | 10 April 1896 |
| Citation | 19 So. 903,109 Ala. 634 |
| Parties | ALLEN v. HAMILTON. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Jefferson county; James J. Banks, Judge.
Action by B. M. Allen against John Hamilton, in which there was a judgment for plaintiff. An execution issued thereon, under which property was seized to which Mary E. Hamilton interposed a claim. From a judgment for claimant upon the trial of the issue formed between her and plaintiff in execution, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
B. M Allen obtained a judgment against John Hamilton, and upon this judgment an execution was issued and levied upon household property that was in a house occupied by John Hamilton and his wife, Mary Hamilton. To the property so levied upon Mary E. Hamilton interposed a claim, and made affidavit, and gave bond as required by the statute. Upon the trial of the issue formed under the direction of the court upon the interposition of the claim the plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that at the time of levying the execution on the property it was in a house where John Hamilton, the defendant in execution, and the claimant, Mary E. Hamilton, were living as man and wife, and that John Hamilton had purchased the property so levied upon from a furniture dealer. The evidence for the claimant tended to show that she and her husband had selected the furniture, and on the next day succeeding it she gave a part of the purchase money to her husband, who paid it in part payment of the furniture, and that the balance due was paid with money made by the claimant by her own labor. These facts were testified to by the claimant and by her husband. Upon the introduction of all the evidence the plaintiff requested the court to give to the jury the following written charges, and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of them as asked: (1) "If the jury believe the evidence, they must find for the plaintiff as to all property claimed to be given to the wife by the husband since the notes sued in this action were due." (2) "The court charges the jury that from all the evidence in this case the burden of proof is on the claimant." (3) "Finding and levying on the property in possession of the defendant claiming it makes out a prima facie case for the plaintiff." There were verdict and judgment for the claimant. Thereafter the plaintiff moved the court to set aside the verdict and judgment rendered thereon, and to grant him a new trial, upon the grounds: First, that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence; and second, that the court erred in refusing to give the written charges asked for the plaintiff. The court overruled this motion, and to this ruling the plaintiff duly excepted. The present appeal is prosecuted by the plaintiff, who assigns as error the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Humphrey v. Boschung
...to be abstract. Pappas v. Alabama Power Co., 270 Ala. 472, 119 So.2d 899; State v. Ingalls, 277 Ala. 562, 173 So.2d 104; Allen v. Hamilton, 109 Ala. 634, 19 So. 903; Garrett v. Holloway, 24 Ala. 376. This court has said that the giving of an abstract charge, one hypothesized on facts which ......
-
Pappas v. Alabama Power Co.
...partly or entirely on a state of facts not appearing in the evidence are abstract, and it is not error to refuse them. Allen v. Hamilton, 109 Ala. 634, 19 So. 903. This rule negatives any error in refusing the charge. Also, the charge is confusing and Below set out is appellant's requested ......
-
Coulter v. Holder
...253 So.2d 769; Pappas v. Alabama Power Co., 270 Ala. 472, 119 So.2d 899; State v. Ingalls, 277 Ala. 562, 173 So.2d 104; Allen v. Hamilton, 109 Ala. 634, 10 So. 903; Garrett v. Holloway, 24 Ala. We have said that the giving of an abstract charge, one hypothesized on facts which had no suppor......
-
Adair v. Adair
...with that question and the effect of the married woman's statutes, are to the contrary. Code 1940, Tit. 34, § 65 et seq.; Allen v. Hamilton, 109 Ala. 634, 19 So. 903; American Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Powell, 235 Ala. 236, 178 So. 21; 27 C.J.S., Divorce, § 291, p. In fact, the legal effect ......
-
RACE IN CONTRACT LAW.
...849 (mistakes of law affecting contract formation); WILLISTON, supra note 165, at [section] 1551 (citing Ala & Vicksburg Ry. Co., 19 So. 903); see also WILLIAM ALBERT KEENER, A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF QUASI-CONTRACTS 320-21 (1893) (discussing, with respect to services rendered gratuitous......