May v. Draper
| Decision Date | 25 March 1926 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 860 |
| Citation | 214 Ala. 324,107 So. 862 |
| Parties | MAY v. DRAPER. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Morgan County Court; W.T. Lowe, Judge.
Action by Paris Draper against Gus May. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Code 1923, § 7326. Affirmed.
Almon & Almon, of Albany, for appellant.
Sample & Kilpatrick, of Hartselle, for appellee.
The suit in the inferior court of Hartselle, Ala., was for the sum of $100. One count of the complaint was for the wrongful taking of the cotton, another for the conversion, and another for the destruction of plaintiff's lien on the cotton. Recovery on counts 1 and 2 must be supported by the legal title to the cotton at the time of its conversion. The undisputed evidence shows that the legal title to the cotton was in P.G. Kimbrough & Co. at the time of the taking. Plaintiff was not entitled to recover on either counts 1 or 2 of the complaint. When properly invoked thereto, the court will give the affirmative charge as to said counts. However the charges requested and refused (1 and 2) required the jury to "find for the defendant in count 1" and "must find for the defendant on count 2 of the complaint." These charges were defective as pointed out in Goldstein v. Leake, 36 So. 458, 138 Ala. 573; Brotherhood, etc., v. Milner, 69 So. 10, 193 Ala 68; Boshell v. Cunningham, 76 So. 937, 200 Ala. 579; Polytinsky v. Johnston, 99 So. 839, 211 Ala. 99.
The court committed no error in allowing introduction in evidence of the mortgage of Buck Romaines, the tenant, and Paris Draper, his landlord, to P.G. Kimbrough & Co., to secure advances to the tenant. Though the evidence showed that at the time of the taking of the cotton, and at the time of the bringing of the suit, this mortgage had not been transferred from Kimbrough & Co. to plaintiff, Paris Draper, it was nevertheless competent evidence tending to show that the landlord became bound for advances by Kimbrough to Romaines at the time and for the amount indicated--this in connection with the other evidence that Draper paid on said advances the sum of $176.
The court did not err in refusing defendant's motion for a new trial. The undisputed facts show that suit was commenced in the inferior court of Hartselle, a court with a limited jurisdiction to the amount of $100, and judgment was against defendant; that it was appealed to the Morgan county court where...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Bass
...the work was complete and had been accepted by the State.19 See, e. g., Thompson v. Ford Motor Credit Corp., supra ; May v. Draper, 214 Ala. 324, 107 So. 862 (1926).20 The law in Alabama is clear that checks and other types of commercial paper may properly be the subject of an action for co......
-
Dollar v. McKinney
...437; Morgan-Hill Paving Co. v. Thomas, 223 Ala. 88, 134 So. 480; South Central Tel. Co. v. Corr, 220 Ala. 127, 124 So. 294; May v. Draper, 214 Ala. 324, 107 So. 862; Roach v. Wright, 195 Ala. 333, 70 So. 271; Kress v. Lawrence, 158 Ala. 652, 47 So. 574; Alabama Iron Co. v. Smith, 155 Ala. 2......
-
General Finance Corp. v. Bradwell
...437; Morgan-Hill Paving Co. v. Thomas, 223 Ala. 88, 134 So. 480; South Central Tel. Co. v. Corr. 220 Ala. 127, 124 So. 294; May v. Draper, 214 Ala. 324, 107 So. 862; Roach v. Wright, 195 Ala. 333, 70 So. 271; Kress v. Lawrence, 158 Ala. 652, 47 So. 574; Alabama Iron Co. v. Smith, 155 Ala. 2......
-
Railway Exp. Agency v. Burns
...Rhodes-Carroll Furniture Co. v. Webb, 230 Ala. 251, 160 So. 247; Southern Ry. Co. v. Alsobrook, 223 Ala. 540, 137 So. 437; May v. Draper, 214 Ala. 324, 107 So. 862; Boshell v. Cunningham, 200 Ala. 579, 76 So. 937; Goldstein v. Leake, 138 Ala. 573, 36 So. 458; Life & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Har......