W.J. Bennett & Co. v. Brooke

Decision Date28 April 1906
PartiesW. J. BENNETT & CO. v. BROOKE.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; D. W. Speake, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Action by George W. Brooke against W. J. Bennett & Co. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

The complaint in this case was in the following language "Plaintiff claims of the defendants $500 damages for the conversion by them between the months of November, 1901, and September, 1902, of the following chattels, to wit: 1,130 bales of cotton seed hulls, of the average weight of 66 2/3 pounds, the property of plaintiff. The defendants interposed the general issue and the following special pleas: "(2) The defendants for plea allege that Leo H. Johnson did business in Huntsville, Madison county, Ala., during the period from 1901 to September, 1903; that he was a broker and wholesale dealer in corn, hay, potatoes, and other foodstuff that his store or warehouse was situated in Huntsville, Ala on West Clainton street, near depot of the Nashville Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Company; that defendants bought corn, hay, and other produce from said Johnson's said store or warehouse at different times; that defendants purchased the cotton seed hulls, the conversion of which is sued for, from said Johnson and from his said store and warehouse in the ordinary course of trade, for a valuable consideration, and without notice of any claim of ownership or other claim to said cotton seed hulls by any one; and that defendants are bona fide purchasers for value without notice. (3) And defendants for plea allege that the plaintiff herein George W. Brooke, did, on the 5th day of December, 1903 bring a suit in trover against Leo Johnson for conversion of cotton seed hulls, a part of which said Leo Johnson had sold defendants; that subsequently, at November, 1903, term of this court, plaintiff, Brooke, dismissed his said plea against said Johnson, and said case is numbered 3,800 on the docket of this court; and defendants allege that on the 7th of August, 1903, said Brooke bought his suit in detinue, suit numbered 3,761 on the docket of this court, against the said Johnson for cotton seed hulls, part of which had been sold to defendant, who are bona fide purchasers for value and without notice, by said Leo Johnson, who was in the business of a broker or merchant, who sold at wholesale corn, hay, and other foodstuffs from a store or warehouse, and that at the November term, 1903, of this court, said Brooke dismissed said cause; and defendants plead the dismissal of said suits brought by Brooke covering the subject-matter of this suit against said Johnson as a defense in bar of this action. (4) Defendants say that Leo Johnson was a broker and merchant dealing in food and feed stuffs as his principal business from November, 1901, to about November, 1902, in the city of Huntsville, Ala.; that his principal business was that of a warehouseman, but he sold his own food and feed stuffs from said store or warehouse, and that defendants were customers of said Johnson and bought articles sold by said Johnson from his said store or warehouse; and that defendants bought cotton seed hulls, the conversion of which is here sued for, in the regular course of business from his said store or warehouse, and this for valuable consideration and without notice, actual or constructive, of any title or claim in another. (5) Defendants say that plaintiff became indebted to Leo Johnson for storage of a large amount of cotton seed hulls, the conversion of part of which is here sued for, and that ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Henderson Baker Lumber Co. v. Headley
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • May 9, 1946
    ...that no one can transfer a better title than he himself has, with, of course, certain well-known exceptions, citing Bennett & Co. v. Brooks, 146 Ala. 490, 41 So. 149, 150, where the rule was quoted as follows: 'One who, acting in good faith, purchases a chattel from a person in possession, ......
  • Brooks v. Greil Bros. Co.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • November 7, 1914
    ... ... These ... authorities are not in conflict with Bennett v ... Brooks, 146 Ala. 490, 494, 41 So. 149, 150, where ... Justice Anderson said: ... "The ... ...
  • Moore v. Long
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • December 18, 1947
    ... ... purchases without notice of the infirmity, and for a valuable ... consideration. Bennett and Co. v. Brooks, 146 Ala ... 490, 41 So. 149; Barrow v. Brent, 202 Ala. 650, 81 ... So. 669; ... ...
  • McRae v. Bandy
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • November 5, 1959
    ...his seller had although he purchases without notice of the infirmity, and for a valuable consideration * * *.' See also Bennett & Co. v. Brooks, 146 Ala. 490, 41 So. 149; Barrow v. Brent, 202 Ala. 650, 81 So. 669; Barksdale v. Banks, 206 Ala. 569, 90 So. It was said in Claybrooke Warehouse ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT