Bowline v. Cox
| Decision Date | 13 June 1946 |
| Docket Number | 2 Div. 223. |
| Citation | 26 So.2d 574,248 Ala. 55 |
| Parties | BOWLINE v. COX. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Wilkinson & Wilkinson, of Selma, for appellant.
Royal Randolph Smith, of Selma, for appellee.
The suit is in detinue by the administrator of the estate of Francis Bowline, deceased, against defendant C. K. Cox for the recovery of a diamond ring of the value of $2,000. There was verdict and judgment for the defendant, from which the plaintiff prosecutes this appeal.
It is clearly established by the proof that the ring in question formerly belonged to Francis Bowline, plaintiff's intestate, who died at the age of 74 in December, 1945, and that on numerous occasions decedent had been seen wearing this ring. Bowline was a widower, his wife having died in 1939, and counsel for appellee states in brief the couple had no children, though our study of the record fails to disclose that this particular fact was brought out in the proof.
A short time following the death of Bowline, one Wooley decedent's brother-in-law, asked the defendant Cox if he knew where all of Bowline's diamonds were. In the course of the conversation it was stated that a large diamond ring had not yet been found. Cox at that time had said nothing about this particular ring, but when it was mentioned, he pulled his hand out of his pocket and said: He stated that he had had it since 1942. Wooley then stated to Cox, that if he could prove to the heirs that Bowline did give him the ring, to bring the proof to the administrator and that would be all that was necessary.
The nearest definite time fixed by Cox in his testimony was that he secured possession of this ring in the summer of 1942. There was much evidence that Cox had had the ring and had worn it more or less constantly since that date, and that Bowline had visited the store where Cox was employed on numerous occasions and no objection was ever heard to have been interposed to his use of it. On the other hand, there was evidence offered by the plaintiff tending to show that Bowline himself had been wearing this ring on many occasions following the summer of 1942, and that he had been heard to say that he had let Cox 'splurge the ring.' There was no blood relationship between Bowline and Cox, but unquestionably they were great friends. We gather from the record that Cox was much the younger, and had, when quite a young man, some 16 years of age, boarded in the home of Bowline and his wife for a period of three years.
Plaintiff offered to show that, at the time Cox claimed Bowline gave him this ring the latter was indebted to Cox in the sum of $600, which was secured by a mortgage on his home; that the mortgage was marked 'paid in full and satisfied of record February 22nd, 1946,' which satisfaction was signed by defendant Cox and attested by the probate clerk. Plaintiff further offered receipts in varying amounts, signed by Cox one dated September 5, 1942, for $36 interest on mortgage another dated August 18, 1943, in the sum of $200 on account of mortgage, still another of September 17, 1943, in the sum of $24 marked 'for mortgage and interest in full.' And the last receipt offered was for $400 dated March 30, 1943, with the recital
Defendant's objection to the introduction in evidence of this cancelled mortgage and of the above-noted receipts was sustained, and this ruling of the court presents the only question here for review. It was the theory of the plaintiff that he should be permitted to show the relation between the parties at the time of the purported gift of this valuable ring, i. e., that aside from the relationship, which was clearly established, there was also existing the relationship of debtor and creditor. The trial judge was of the opinion this evidence was too remote from the issue involved, and persistently ruled that the proffered proof was inadmissible.
As a background for our thought upon the question here presented it should be borne in mind that the result of this litigation turns entirely upon circumstantial evidence. The declaration of Cox, who was in possession of the ring, to the effect that he claimed the property was inadmissible as substantive evidence of the gift, but was admissible as a part of the res gestae of his possession, as tending to show claim of ownership or to rebut any inference of an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grigsby v. State
...force and effect of circumstantial facts usually, and almost necessarily, depend upon their connection with each other. Bowline v. Cox, 248 Ala. 55, 26 So.2d 574 (1946). The latitude of the trial judge's discretion in admitting circumstantial evidence is great. Holmes v. Goldsmith, supra; O......
-
Cowart v. GEICO Cas. Co.
...Garrison, 284 Ala. at 249, 224 So. 2d at 608 (citing Jennings v. Jennings, 250 Ala. 130, 33 So. 2d 251 (1947), and Bowline v. Cox, 248 Ala. 55, 26 So. 2d 574 (1946) ). Misty submitted substantial evidence that Zachariah intended to give her the Jeep as a gift. First, Misty's affidavit, as d......
-
Mantiply v. Mantiply
...an unexplained payment of money will be presumed to be made in payment of debt, or as a loan, rather than as a gift.' Bowline v. Cox, 248 Ala. 55, 26 So.2d 574 (1946). This presumption arises in relationships between parties in which the payor naturally places confidence in the payee that t......
-
Independent Life & Acc. Ins. Co. of Jacksonville, Fla. v. Aaron
...of deceased, circumstantial evidence is competent, provided it is the best evidence which the nature of the case admits. Bowline v. Cox, 248 Ala. 55, 26 So.2d 574. Here, the evidence of the expert was such prima facie evidence which would suffice, or from which the jury could conclude what ......