Sumrall Motor Co. v. Creel
| Decision Date | 13 October 1930 |
| Docket Number | 28842 |
| Citation | 158 Miss. 262,130 So. 151 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | SUMRALL MOTOR CO. v. CREEL |
1. TROVER AND CONVERSION.
Issue in trover action involving ownership and right to possession of automobile was properly submitted to jury, where evidence was sharply conflicting.
2. TROVER AND CONVERSION. In trover action involving no question of fraud or oppression, measure of damages is value of property at conversion with interest to trial.
Under foregoing rule may be embraced all cases where defendant neither in the taking or in the detention or disposition of the property has been guilty of any willful wrong, but acts in good faith and with no intent injuriously to affect plaintiff's rights.
3. TROVER AND CONVERSION.
Where circumstances of fraud or oppression or willful wrong enter into conversion, damages other than value of property at time of conversion are recoverable.
4 TRIAL.
Instruction in trover action held not erroneous as assuming automobile was property of plaintiff at time of conversion.
5 TRIAL.
Refusing defendant's requested instruction in trover action held not error, where subject thereof was sufficiently covered by other instructions given.
APPEAL from circuit court of Lamar county, HON. J. Q. LANGSTON, Judge.
Action in trover by C. J. Creel against the Sumrall Motor Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
W. J. Hatten, of Sumrall, and D. T. Currie, of Hattiesburg, for appellant.
The measure of damages for the conversion of property is the value of the property at the time of the conversion, with interest thereon to the time of trial.
Ingrain Day Lumber Company v. Robertson, 92 So. 289; Hinds v. Terry, Wlk. 81; Texado v. Camp, Walk, 150; Whitfield v. Whitfield, 40 Miss. 352; Bickell v. Colton, 41 Miss. 369; Jamison v. Moore, 43 Miss. 602; Taylor v. Morton, 61 Miss. 24.
The evidence offered on behalf of appellee and every inference that might be drawn from all the evidence wholly failed to establish his right and title to this automobile and the court should have directed the jury to find for appellant.
To sustain trover plaintiff must at the time of conversion of property own it or have general or special rights therein coupled with possession of it, or immediate right thereto.
First National Bank of Godsden v. Burnett, 104 So. 17; Succession of Righter v. Farbacker, 123 So. 308.
J. T. Garraway, of Purvis, for appellee.
The jury heard all of the controversy and had an opportunity to know who was the most trustworthy, and who should be believed, and they exercised this in favor of the appellee and should not expect a reversal on the face of this record.
This was an action in trover brought by the appellee to recover the value of an automobile which the appellant had taken from the possession of the appellee and converted to its own use; and, from a judgment in favor of the appellee for the value of the automobile, and for the reasonable value of the use thereof from the date of the alleged wrongful taking to the date of the trial in the court below, this appeal was prosecuted.
The evidence of the respective parties tending to establish the ownership and right to the possession of the automobile was sharply conflicting, and it was proper to submit that issue to the jury. The appellant, however, complains of certain alleged errors in the instructions granted to the appellee, and of the refusal of an instruction requested by it.
The amount sued for was largely in excess of the reasonable value of the automobile, and the use thereof for the period of time involved, as shown by the evidence; and the court instructed the jury, in effect, that, in the event they found that the automobile in question was the property of the appellee at the time the appellant took and appropriated it, they should return a verdict for the appellee for the reasonable value...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tennessee Joint Stock Land Bank v. Bank of Greenwood
... ... 371, 12 So. 446; Newman v. Bank of ... Greenville, 66 Miss. 323, 5 So. 753; Sumrall Motor ... Co. v. Creel, 158 Miss. 262, 130 So. 151; Jamison v ... Moon, 43 Miss. 598; Briscoe ... ...
-
Skrmetta, Doing Business As Deer Island Fish & Oyster Co. v. Clark
... ... v. Morton, 61 Miss. 24; Ingram-Day Lbr. Co. v ... Robertson, 129 Miss. 365, 92 So. 282; Sumrall Motor Co ... v. Creel, 130 So. 151 ... It is a ... familiar rule of law that a ... ...
-
Rucker v. Hopkins
...Williams v. Weeks, 268 So.2d 340 (Miss.1972); Clark v. Luther McGill, Inc., 240 Miss. 509, 127 So.2d 858 (1961); Sumrall Motor Co. v. Creel, 158 Miss. 262, 130 So. 151 (1930). Cases occur in which the trial judge should permit the issue of liability to be passed upon by a jury even though t......
-
Lucas v. Mississippi Housing Authority No. 8, 53752
...Williams v. Weeks, 268 So.2d 340 (Miss.1972); Clark v. Luther McGill, Inc., 240 Miss. 509, 127 So.2d 858 (1961); Sumrall Motor Co. v. Creel, 158 Miss. 262, 130 So. 151 (1930). While the evidence here is mostly undisputed, the issue of causation is still a question for the jury. We are of th......