Jenkins v. Holly, 6 Div. 119
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | McCLELLAN, J. |
| Citation | 204 Ala. 519,86 So. 390 |
| Parties | JENKINS v. HOLLY et al. |
| Decision Date | 14 October 1920 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 119 |
86 So. 390
204 Ala. 519
JENKINS
v.
HOLLY et al.
6 Div. 119
Supreme Court of Alabama
October 14, 1920
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J.C.B. Gwin, Judge.
Action by Mary and Ike Holly against J.A. Jenkins, in trover and conversion. Judgment for the plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under section 6, p. 450, Acts 1911. Reversed and remanded. [86 So. 391]
Estes & Jones, of Bessemer, for appellant.
Huey & Welch, of Bessemer, for appellees.
McCLELLAN, J.
From a judgment for plaintiffs (appellees) this appeal is prosecuted. The case of the plaintiffs went to the jury upon the issues made by a general traverse of the averments of counts 1 and 4; the former count declaring upon a wrongful taking of certain household effects, "the property of the plaintiffs," and the latter for the conversion of the chattels, "the property of the plaintiffs." There was evidence, given by one of the plaintiffs, in support of this allegation of ownership. The insistence in brief for error on that account is, hence, not well taken.
Ike and Mary Holly lived in a dwelling near Bessemer on which the defendant (appellant) held a mortgage, several installment notes secured thereby being past due. Ike went to Kentucky, and Mary soon followed. She stored the household effects in one room of the building and rented the other rooms to a negro named Booker; and when she left gave the key to the storage room to Booker, thus putting the furniture, etc., in the custody of Booker. Mary testified that she "turned all the keys over to him [Booker]," and "left him to look after everything"; and that she went to see defendant (appellant) and advised him that Booker was in charge of everything, defendant agreeing to collect the rent from Booker and apply it to the mortgage debt on the real estate. There was evidence in conflict with this statement of defendant's agreement. When the plaintiffs returned, defendant had foreclosed his mortgage, and the chattels stored in the room had been removed. A great deal of these chattels was subject to liens in favor of other persons or concerns; and these lienees or title retainers had taken the property subject to their claims. It was not shown on the trial that this defendant was in any way legally accountable for the taking by these lienees or title retainers of the chattels stored and committed to the custody and charge of the agent of the plaintiffs; no force, violence, or other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Desbien v. Penokee Farmers Union Co-op. Ass'n, No. 48022
...Professor Prosser relies on Hein v. Marcante et al., 57 Wyo. 81, 113 P.2d 940; Irish v. Cloyes & Morse, 8 Vt. 30; Jenkins v. Holly, 204 Ala. 519, 86 So. 390; Knowles v. Knowles, 25 R.I. 464, 56 A. 775; Dietzman v. Ralston Purina Co., 246 Or. 367, 425 P.2d 163. He also cites Richstein v. Roe......
-
Wolff v. Zurga, 2 Div. 30.
...185, 139 So. 409; C. W. Zimmerman Mfg. Co. v. Dunn, 163 Ala. 272, 50 So. 906; Booker v. Jones' Adm'x, 55 Ala. 266. In Jenkins v. Holly, 204 Ala. 519, 520, 86 So. 390, 391, is the observation that: "'The owner's loss, and not the wrongdoer's gain, is the point chiefly regarded. It is the int......
-
Pollard v. Pollard, 7 Div. 300.
...effect a conversion. Such is not a correct statement of the law of conversion. Davis v. Hurt, 114 Ala. 146, 21 So. 468; Jenkins v. Holly, 204 Ala. 519, 86 So. 390; Churchill v. Walling, 205 Ala. 508, 88 So. 582. As to the count in trover, there was no evidence that defendants claimed and ex......
-
AC Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. AMERICAN NAT. B. & T. CO. OF MOBILE, Civ. A. No. 4180-66
...taking of the trust receipts he exercised any control or dominion in the property described in the trust receipts. In Jenkins v. Holly, 204 Ala. 519, 86 So. 390, it was held that since the evidence disclosed no act with respect to the control or dominion of the chattel against the true owne......
-
Desbien v. Penokee Farmers Union Co-op. Ass'n, No. 48022
...Professor Prosser relies on Hein v. Marcante et al., 57 Wyo. 81, 113 P.2d 940; Irish v. Cloyes & Morse, 8 Vt. 30; Jenkins v. Holly, 204 Ala. 519, 86 So. 390; Knowles v. Knowles, 25 R.I. 464, 56 A. 775; Dietzman v. Ralston Purina Co., 246 Or. 367, 425 P.2d 163. He also cites Richstein v. Roe......
-
Wolff v. Zurga, 2 Div. 30.
...185, 139 So. 409; C. W. Zimmerman Mfg. Co. v. Dunn, 163 Ala. 272, 50 So. 906; Booker v. Jones' Adm'x, 55 Ala. 266. In Jenkins v. Holly, 204 Ala. 519, 520, 86 So. 390, 391, is the observation that: "'The owner's loss, and not the wrongdoer's gain, is the point chiefly regarded. It is the int......
-
Pollard v. Pollard, 7 Div. 300.
...effect a conversion. Such is not a correct statement of the law of conversion. Davis v. Hurt, 114 Ala. 146, 21 So. 468; Jenkins v. Holly, 204 Ala. 519, 86 So. 390; Churchill v. Walling, 205 Ala. 508, 88 So. 582. As to the count in trover, there was no evidence that defendants claimed and ex......
-
AC Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. AMERICAN NAT. B. & T. CO. OF MOBILE, Civ. A. No. 4180-66
...taking of the trust receipts he exercised any control or dominion in the property described in the trust receipts. In Jenkins v. Holly, 204 Ala. 519, 86 So. 390, it was held that since the evidence disclosed no act with respect to the control or dominion of the chattel against the true owne......