Polytinsky v. Lindsey
| Citation | 21 Ala.App. 128,106 So. 70 |
| Decision Date | 27 October 1925 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 356 |
| Parties | POLYTINSKY v. LINDSEY. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Morgan County Court; W.T. Lowe, Judge.
Action in trover by J.W. Lindsey against A. Polytinsky. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Sample & Kilpatrick, of Hartsells, for appellant.
Tennis Tidwell, of Albany, for appellee.
The judgment entry recites: "Defendant demurs to complaint as amended." No such demurrer appears in the record, and hence we presume the court did not err in overruling this demurrer. Moreover, according to the recitals in the judgment, the demurrer went to the entire complaint, composed of 12 separate counts. If any of the counts were good, and we think they all are, any demurrer going to the entire complaint would be properly overruled.
The plaintiff held a mortgage given by one Sharpley on crops raised by him in 1920. Sharpley had crops on two places during the year 1920. As to one of these places (the Weir place), plaintiff's mortgage was valid and binding; as to the other (the Bolden place), plaintiff's mortgage was not valid, Sharpley having acquired the crops on the Bolden place subsequent to the execution of the mortgage. There is no evidence identifying the cotton and cotton seed bought by defendant as being cotton raised on the Weir place. The burden is on plaintiff of showing by the evidence that the cotton purchased by defendant was covered by the mortgage under which he claimed title. The defendant was entitled to the general charge. First National Bank of Alex. City v. Harden, 17 Ala.App. 165, 82 So. 655; Johnson v. Coosa Mfg. Co., 16 Ala.App. 649, 81 So. 141.
For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tonsmeire v. Tonsmeire
...respectively. Therefore if one count of the complaint is good, the demurrer should be overruled, save for misjoinder. Polytinsky v. Lindsey, 21 Ala.App. 128, 106 So. 70; Webb v. Litz, 39 Ala.App. 443, 102 So.2d The following two code sections in Title 7, Code of Alabama 1940, are to be cons......
-
Poole v. New
...... action there was, in overruling the separate demurrers of. appellants to counts 3 and 4 of the complaint. Polytinsky. v. Lindsey, 21 Ala.App. 128, 106 So. 70; Berkowitz. v. Farrell, 19 Ala.App. 196, 95 So. 916; Chemical. Co. v. Niles, 156 Ala. 298, 47 So. 239; ......