Bowen v. Hamilton
Decision Date | 16 November 1916 |
Docket Number | 5 Div. 624 |
Citation | 197 Ala. 418,73 So. 5 |
Parties | BOWEN v. HAMILTON. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Elmore County; W.W. Pearson, Judge.
Suit by S.I. Hamilton against F.L. Bowen. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Transferred from the Court of Appeals under Acts 1911, p. 449, § 6. Affirmed.
See also, 70 So. 1015.
J.M Holley, of Wetumpka, for appellant.
T.G Hilyer, of Tallassee, for appellee.
The suit is for the wrongful taking and the conversion of 50 bushels of corn, to which the plaintiff claimed title and right of possession under a mortgage given by H.C. Black to plaintiff, of due date September 15, 1913. The mortgage contained the following clause:
The plaintiff's evidence was such as would warrant the jury in inferring that the mortgage was due; that defendant admitted to plaintiff that the mortgagor sold him some corn raised in the year 1913; that the corn was raised by mortgagor in Elmore county; that the corn was at the time worth 90 cents per bushel; that demand was made on defendant for the same; but that it was not delivered up, nor payment made therefor to the plaintiff. The evidence further showed the recordation of defendant's mortgage on Black's crop grown for that year, subsequent to the recordation of plaintiff's mortgage.
There was evidence from which the jury might infer that 44 bushels of the corn in question, grown by Black in Elmore county in the year 1913, was by the defendant taken and converted, to the plaintiff's damage.
The affirmative charge can be given at the defendant's request only when there is no evidence which tends to establish the plaintiff's case. It is not for the court to judge of the sufficiency of the evidence, nor to decide which of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McMillan v. Aiken
...is evidence reasonably affording an inference adverse to the right of recovery by the party asking the general charge ( Bowen v. Hamilton, 197 Ala. 418, 73 So. 5; C. & St. L. Ry. v. Crosby, 194 Ala. 338, 70 So. 7; B.R., L. & P. Co. v. Enslen, 144 Ala. 343, 350, 39 So. 74), or from which the......
-
Crim v. Louisville & N.R. Co.
...is evidence reasonably affording an inference adverse to the right of recovery by the party asking the general charge ( Bowen v. Hamilton, 197 Ala. 418, 73 So. 5; & St. L. Ry. v. Crosby, 194 Ala. 338, 70 So. 7; B.R., L. & P. Co. v. Enslen, 144 Ala. 343, 350, 39 So. 74), or from which the ju......
-
Howton v. Mathias
...description of the wagon, three milch cows, five yearlings, and the corn and fodder was as specific as their nature would permit. Bowen v. Hamilton, 73 So. 5; Hooper v. supra. The sale, destruction, or other disposition of things held in common by one joint tenant, or tenant in common, so a......
-
Watts v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
... ... 175, 69 So. 601; Lawson v. Mobile Elec ... Co., 204 Ala. 318, 85 So. 257; Sherrill v. M. & M ... T. & S. Bank, 195 Ala. 175, 70 So. 723; Bowen v ... Hamilton, 197 Ala. 418, 73 So. 5; Dorough v. Ala ... Co., ... 200 Ala. 605 ,76 So. 963 ... [100 So. 814] ... The ... ...