Hooper v. Dorsey

• Citation: 58 So. 951,5 Ala.App. 463
• Parties: HOOPER v. DORSEY.
• Decision Date: 07 May 1912
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

58 So. 951

5 Ala.App. 463

HOOPER v. DORSEY.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

May 7, 1912

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; W. W. Haralson, Judge.

Action by Bertha B. Dorsey against A. R. Hooper. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

It seems from the record that A. R. Hooper had judgment against J. L. Dorsey, and on execution issued thereon levied upon 21 dogs alleged to be the property of said J. L. Dorsey. The dogs were sold, and Bertha B. Dorsey brings this action to recover for the same, claiming that the dogs were her property, and not that of J. L. Dorsey.

W. C Rayburn, D. Isbell, and Kennamer & Killcrease, all of Guntersville, for appellant.

J. A Lusk & Son, of Guntersville, for appellee.

WALKER, P.J.

The complaint contained counts in trespass and in trover. The subject of the alleged wrongs was described as "twenty-one dogs, the property of the plaintiff." The first count further referred to the property as in the possession of the plaintiff. The nature of the action did not call for a more specific or detailed description. In such an action no such fullness of description is necessary as is required in an action seeking a recovery of specific chattels. In the latter kind of action the thing sought to be recovered must be so described that an intelligible and enforceable judgment for it may be rendered. In an action like the present one, claiming damages for a trespass or a conversion, a much less specific description will suffice and it is enough to allege the nature or kind of chattels referred to and the quantity or number of them. Moody v Keener, 7 Port. 218; Joseph v. Henderson, 95 Ala. 213, 10 So. 843; 38 Cyc. 1080, 2067. The complaint was not subject to demurrer on the ground of the insufficiency of the description of the subject of the alleged wrongs.

It appeared from the testimony of the witness Curry that he had such knowledge of the value of the kind of dogs about which he was questioned, gained from actual sales made of which he was cognizant, as to qualify him to testify as to their value. As to such matters it is not required that the witness be shown to have had special experience or training entitling him to be called an expert. Alabama Great Southern R. Co v. Moody, 92 Ala. 279, 9 So. 238; Jones on Evidence, § 363. The court was not in error in overruling the defendant's objection to the question asked that witness as to the value of "a grown well-trained fox hound."

As to the ruling of the court on an objection made by the defendant to the question asked the witness Jack Jordan on his cross-examination, it is enough to say that it is not made to appear by the bill of...