W.O. Broyles Stove & Furniture Co. v. Hines, 6 Div. 120
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | ANDERSON, C.J. |
| Citation | 204 Ala. 584,87 So. 19 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 120 |
| Decision Date | 28 October 1920 |
| Parties | W.O. BROYLES STOVE & FURNITURE CO. v. HINES, Director General. |
87 So. 19
204 Ala. 584
W.O. BROYLES STOVE & FURNITURE CO.
v.
HINES, Director General.
6 Div. 120
Supreme Court of Alabama
October 28, 1920
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Romain Boyd, Judge.
Action by the W.O. Broyles Stove & Furniture Company against Walker D. Hines, as Director General operating the Southern Railway Company. From judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under section 6, Acts 1911, p. 450. Reversed and remanded. [87 So. 20.]
Weatherly, Deedmeyer & Birch, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Stokely, Scrivner & Dominick, of Birmingham, for appellee.
ANDERSON, C.J.
While it is a well-settled legal principle that one who has a special as well as a general interest or title to personal property can maintain trover for the conversion of same, it is also settled that one who has a special interest can only recover the value of his special interest in the property. McGowen v. Young, 2 Stew. & P. 160; Zimmerman v. Dunn, 151 Ala. 438, 44 So. 533. Especially does this rule apply to those plaintiffs in trover who sue for a general conversion and who merely hold a mortgage or lien upon the property converted. Seibold v. Rodgers, 110 Ala. 438, 18 So. 312; Ryan v. Young, 147 Ala. 660, 41 So. 954. The defendant's special plea 4 negatives any general interest or title of the plaintiff in or to the property, and sets up a state of facts showing that the gravamen of its action was the delivery to the consignee of certain goods before the payment of a draft for $54 covering certain shipping charges, freight, etc. In other words, the wrong complained of was not in the conversion of plaintiff's property, but in delivering certain property to the rightful consignee prior to the payment of said draft covering the shipping charges. Had the $54 been paid before the delivery of the goods to E. Peck, the plaintiff, under the facts disclosed by the pleading, would have no right of action against this defendant. Therefore the plaintiff's special interest in the property claimed to have been converted is analogous to that of a lienee or mortgagee, and the measure of recovery should be confined to the $54 with interest from the time of the alleged conversion.
The defendant's plea 4, however, purporting to be one of tender, should have averred that the $54 offered the plaintiff was tendered immediately after the delivery of the goods, or else should have included interest in said sum from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Anderson
...added); Long-Lewis Hardware Co. v. Abston, 235 Ala. 599, 180 So. 261, 262 (1938); W.O. Broyles Stove & Furniture Co. v. Hines, 204 Ala. 584, 87 So. 19, 20 (1920). In this case, the change of one word in the common-law rule creates two different rules and two different results. Under the ori......
-
Edwards v. Earnest, 6 Div. 148
...26 Colo.App. 324, 144 P. 1133; Chaufty v. De Vries, 41 R.I. 1, 102 A. 612. An examination of the case of Dowdell v. Beasley, 205 Ala. 130, 87 So. 19, cited by appellant's counsel, discloses a state of facts unlike those here presented, and that authority does not militate against the conclu......
-
Richton Overland Co. v. McCormick Motor Car Co., 26612
...42 Miss. 420; Glaze v. McMillan, 7 Port. 279; Corbitt v. Reynolds, 68 Ala. 379; Broyles Stove, etc., Co. v. Hines, Director General, 87 So. 19; McCord v. Rumsey, 95 So. 268; Wilson v. Caldwell, 95 So. 337; Hodges v. Westmoreland, 96 So. 573; Story v. Robinson, 99 So. 917; Albertville Tradin......
-
Long-Lewis Hardware Co. v. Abston, 6 Div. 276.
...right of possession, in the plaintiff at the time of the conversion. W. O. Broyles Stove & Furniture Co. v. Hines, Director General, 204 Ala. 584, 87 So. 19; Granade v. United States Lbr. & Cotton Co. 224 Ala. 185, 139 So. 409; Booker et al. v. Jones' Adm'x, 55 Ala. 266. It has been held by......
-
Ex parte Anderson
...added); Long-Lewis Hardware Co. v. Abston, 235 Ala. 599, 180 So. 261, 262 (1938); W.O. Broyles Stove & Furniture Co. v. Hines, 204 Ala. 584, 87 So. 19, 20 (1920). In this case, the change of one word in the common-law rule creates two different rules and two different results. Under the ori......
-
Edwards v. Earnest, 6 Div. 148
...26 Colo.App. 324, 144 P. 1133; Chaufty v. De Vries, 41 R.I. 1, 102 A. 612. An examination of the case of Dowdell v. Beasley, 205 Ala. 130, 87 So. 19, cited by appellant's counsel, discloses a state of facts unlike those here presented, and that authority does not militate against the conclu......
-
Richton Overland Co. v. McCormick Motor Car Co., 26612
...42 Miss. 420; Glaze v. McMillan, 7 Port. 279; Corbitt v. Reynolds, 68 Ala. 379; Broyles Stove, etc., Co. v. Hines, Director General, 87 So. 19; McCord v. Rumsey, 95 So. 268; Wilson v. Caldwell, 95 So. 337; Hodges v. Westmoreland, 96 So. 573; Story v. Robinson, 99 So. 917; Albertville Tradin......
-
Dowdell v. Beasley, 3 Div. 450
...And while he was proceeding to that destination, at a point quite remote from the garage to which he had been sent for gasoline, with [87 So. 19.] instructions to return directly to defendants' place of business, he ran upon and injured plaintiff. In such a case the authorities all agree, i......