Davis v. Hays

• Decision Date: 19 June 1890
• Citation: 89 Ala. 563,8 So. 131
• Parties: DAVIS ET AL. v. HAYS.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

8 So. 131

89 Ala. 563

DAVIS ET AL. v. HAYS.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 19, 1890

Appeal from circuit court, Henry county; J. M. CARMICHAEL, Judge.

This was a contest of a claim of exemptions between the appellants, as plaintiffs, and the appellee, as one of the defendants, in the original suit against him and his partner Walker, wherein the plaintiffs sued Walker and Hays, as partners, and individually. Upon an affidavit and bond being made by the plaintiffs, a writ of garnishment was issued, and served on two persons indebted to the defendant Hays. Upon these garnishees making their answer showing an indebtedness to the defendant Hays, the said Hays thereupon filed his claim of exemptions with the clerk of the court from which the garnishments were issued, and included, in this said claim of exemption, the debts due him by the garnishees. Upon the interposition of this claim by said Hays, the plaintiffs moved the court to set aside the said claim as being invalid and not made according to the statute, and also moved to have the said Hays file another and fuller inventory of his personal property. Upon the trial of issue made up under the provisions of section 2531 of the Code of 1886, it was proved that the claimant, Hays, had paid to him, in October, 1887 $1,500, and, upon the attempt of the plaintiffs to make further proof of the property of the claimant, there were certain rulings of the court duly excepted to by the claimant. The facts and rulings on this evidence are sufficiently shown in the opinion of this court. Upon the evidence, the court, at the request of the claimant in writing, gave the jury the following charges: "(1) If the jury believe, from the evidence in this case, that at the time of the filing of the claim of exemptions by Hays, he (Hays) did not own over $1,000 in personal property, and said property was claimed as exempt by Hays, and that said Hays has filed a complete inventory of all of his personal property in excess of said thousand dollars, and that there is no fraud in the transaction, then the jury must find for the defendant Hays. (2) When there is no conflict in the testimony on a material matter, then it is the duty of the jury to accept such testimony, and consider it, and give it full weight in arriving at their verdict, and the jury cannot, captiously or capriciously, reject any testimony, but must consider it all in determining the issues submitted to them for discussion." The plaintiffs duly excepted to the giving of each of these charges. There was judgment for the claimant, and the plaintiffs now...