Jesse French Piano & Organ Co. v. Johnston
| Decision Date | 20 December 1904 |
| Citation | 37 So. 924,142 Ala. 419 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Parties | JESSE FRENCH PIANO & ORGAN CO. v. JOHNSTON ET AL. |
Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; A. D. Sayre, Judge.
Action by Allie M. Johnston and others against the Jesse French Piano & Organ Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs defendant appeals. Reversed.
On the trial of the case it was shown that the piano in question was delivered to the defendant during the negotiation of a sale by the defendant to the plaintiffs of a new piano, but that this sale was not consummated, and the new piano which was placed in the home of the plaintiffs was returned by them to the defendant. The only question involved on the present appeal is whether or not there had been a demand made upon the defendant for the return of the piano, and a refusal of this demand. The suit was brought for the plaintiff by their attorney, George Stowers, Esq. Upon being examined as a witness, Mr. Stowers testified as follows: "That before the bringing of the suit he called upon Mr. A. G. Forbes, the manager of defendant, and demanded the piano in the name of E. E. Forbes, and that Mr. Forbes refused to give it up saying he would look the matter up, and let him know; and that later on he demanded the piano of Mr. A. G. Forbes in the name of these plaintiffs, and that he refused to give it up." This was the only testimony in reference to a demand by Stowers, and there was no other reference introduced as to his having any authority. It was shown by the evidence that the plaintiffs purchased a piano from E. E Forbes, and authorized him to get the old piano from the defendant.
Ray Rushton, for appellant.
Geo Stowers, for appellees.
This was an action of trover for the conversion of a piano, and the case was tried by the judge without a jury, and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $75. The evidence establishes the ownership of the plaintiffs to the property and that defendant acquired possession thereof through their servant, and the sole question presented for review is, was there such a demand and refusal as would make the defendant a tort feasor, and guilty of a conversion? All conversions are divided into four distinct classes: (1) By a wrongful taking; (2) by an illegal assumption; (3) by an illegal user or misuser; and (4) by a wrongful detention. In the three first-named classes there is no necessity for a demand and refusal, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People's Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Huttig Mfg. Co.
... ... Schwab et al., 104 Ala. 669, 672, 16 So. 692; Jesse ... French Piano & Organ Co. v. Johnston et al., 142 Ala ... ...
-
J. R. Kilgore & Son v. Shannon & Co.
... ... the suit. Jesse French Co. v. Johnson, 142 Ala. 419, ... 37 So. 924; 6 ... ...
-
Barnewell v. Stephens
... ... they made the written demand. Jesse French Piano Co. v ... Johnston (Ala.) 37 So. 924; ... ...
-
U-Haul Co. of Alabama v. Long
...or misuser. Scott Paper Co. v. Novay Cherry Barge Service, Inc., 48 Ala.App. 368, 265 So.2d 150 (1972); Jesse French Piano and Organ Co. v. Johnston, 142 Ala. 419, 37 So. 924 (1904). Although under that class of conversion no demand and refusal is necessary, there were here three separate d......