Carr v. Lester
| Decision Date | 30 May 1890 |
| Citation | 90 Ala. 349,8 So. 35 |
| Parties | CARR v. LESTER. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from city court of Birmingham; H. A. SHARPE, Judge.
This action was brought by the appellee, Lilly Lester, against the appellant, Mrs. L. M. Carr, and sought to recover the possession of a piano. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and issue was joined thereon. The evidence is without material conflict, and shows that in the latter part of 1881 or the first part of 1882 the plaintiff owned the piano in question,and, on her going traveling with her husband, she left the piano with one Mrs. Richards, her mother. Mrs Richards kept the piano, and brought it to Birmingham, when she moved there in 1882, and continued to keep the said piano in an hotel which she kept in the city of Birmingham, and the piano was used by Mrs. Richards and the guests of her hotel. Mrs. Richards leased an hotel from one Lunsford, and in this hotel the piano remained in the parlor all of the time, and the plaintiff never made any effort to take it, nor did she exert any act of ownership over it, even after her return which was in November, 1886. Mrs. Richards failed to meet some of the payments as specified in her lease with Lunsford and, in order to secure his indulgence, mortgaged to him her property, including the piano here sued for. This piano remained in the possession of Mrs. Richards, together with her other property, until she made an assignment of all of her property, together with the piano, to said Lunsford, and vacated the hotel. Said Lunsford held possession of all of this property so assigned until he leased the hotel and furniture, including the piano, to the defendant, Mrs. Carr the appellant here; and this defendant had and held it as the tenant of said Lunsford. Her lease expired the day after the summons and complaint in this case were served on her, and she thereupon surrendered the hotel and furniture, including the piano, to the said Lunsford, who is now shown to have the said piano. There was no jury asked in this case, and the cause was tried by the judge without the intervention of a jury. Upon all the evidence as produced, the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff, from which the defendant appeals, and here assigns this judgment as error.
Ward & John, for appellant.
Tipton Bradford, for appellee.
The statute provides that "all loans of personal property not in writing, vest an absolute estate in the person in possession under such loan, as to purchasers and creditors of such person, after three years from the commencement of such loan, unless within that time the lender commence an action at law, in good faith, for the recovery of the property." Code, 1866, § 1818. In Myers v. Peek, 2 Ala. 648, (1841,) and again in Gressett v. Agee, 14 Ala. 354, (1848), it was decided that the word "loan" in this statute was not to be technically construed; that it was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Conroy v. Breland
... ... Martin, 258 P ... 498; Columbus Buggy Co. v. Turley & Parker, 73 Miss ... 529; Code of Virginia, sec. 5224; Carr v. Lester, 8 ... So. 35; Dysort v. Hamilton, 11 Tenn.App. 43; ... Doty v. O'Neal, 272 Ill.App. 212; Everett v ... Brown, 20 N.W. 743; Fidelity & ... ...
- Allen v. Intendant and Councilmen of La Fayette
-
Hudnall v. Paine
...whether they are to operate by way of 'condition, reservation, remainder,' or in any other manner known to the law.' Carr v. Lester, 90 Ala. 349, 8 So. 35. That conditional sale of personal property, evidenced by writing, and not recorded, would come under the operation of the statute, was ......
- Jones v. Sandlin