Sansom v. Covington County Bank

• Decision Date: 08 June 1920
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 590
• Citation: 17 Ala.App. 556,87 So. 406
• Parties: SANSOM v. COVINGTON COUNTY BANK.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

87 So. 406

17 Ala.App. 556

SANSOM v. COVINGTON COUNTY BANK.

4 Div. 590

Court of Appeals of Alabama

June 8, 1920

Rehearing Denied June 29, 1920

Appeal from Circuit Court, Coffee County; A.B. Foster, Judge.

Detinue by Jesse Sansom against C.N. Speigner for certain personal property in which claim to the property was interposed by the Covington National Bank. Upon trial of the issues there was verdict for the claimant, and the plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Certiorari denied by Supreme Court, 87 So. 408.

E.O Baldwin, of Andalusia, for appellant.

W.W Sanders, of Elba, for appellee.

BRICKEN P.J.

Appellant brought an action of detinue against C.N. Speigner, for the recovery of certain personal property which included, among other things, 200 bushels of peanuts that were stacked in the field of defendant. Appellee made claim to the peanuts as provided by statute, whereupon issue was made up between the appellant as plaintiff, and appellee as claimant, which was decided by the jury in favor of claimant, appellee, and from the judgment rendered thereon the plaintiff appeals. But two questions were in controversy: The first, Did defendant Speigner rent the lands on which the peanuts in question were grown, to appellee, claimant, prior to the making of the mortgage to plaintiff on February 21, 1916; the other being as to whether said mortgage had been satisfied, either by payments of money, or by the receipt of property contained in the mortgage.

Appellant makes three assignments of error; the first two relating to the rulings of the court upon the evidence, and the third is based upon the ruling of the court in refusing to grant the plaintiff's motion for a new trial.

There was no error in sustaining the objection to the introduction in evidence of the two mortgages from defendant to the First National Bank of Opp, bearing dates of January 16, 1914, and February 9, 1915, respectively, and transferred and assigned to plaintiff. In this action, in order to show a right of recovery, it was incumbent upon plaintiff to prove that he had the legal title to the property in controversy and the right of immediate possession thereof. The peanuts involved here were a part of the crops of the year of 1916, and these mortgages did not convey the legal title thereto, and therefore could be of no avail to plaintiff in an action of detinue for the recovery of personal property. Code 1907, § 4894. Furthermore, it was entirely within the discretion of the trial court to refuse to permit the introduction of the mortgages at the stage of the trial in which they were offered. The plaintiff had rested his case, and the mortgages were offered in evidence during the time claimant was engaged in the presentation of his evidence. Even if the mortgages had been admissible, they should have been offered when the plaintiff was presenting his testimony in chief, or in any event, if it was his desire to offer them at a later period of the trial, he should have done so after the claimant had finished with the introduction of his testimony. This is a well-settled principle of the rules of practice and procedure, and for this reason, also, the court was justified in sustaining the objection interposed to the introduction of the mortgages.

Rules of practice looking to the orderly introduction of evidence by the respective parties are essential in order to prevent injurious surprises, and annoying delays in the trial of cases and the administration of justice. The trial has its regular stage of process, and the evidence should be introduced with reference thereto; and the general rule is that the plaintiff having the burden of proof must in the first instance produce all the evidence he has in support of his case, then the defendant must offer all his evidence in defense, plaintiff then replies, and should confine his evidence to a direct answer to defendant's case, and ordinarily the rebutting evidence offered by him upon whom the burden of proof rests concludes the introduction of evidence, but not always, for it is within the discretion of the court, for good reasons and in the furtherance of justice, to...