W.J. Bennett & Co. v. Brooke
Decision Date | 28 April 1906 |
Parties | W. J. BENNETT & CO. v. BROOKE. |
Court | Alabama 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: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Henderson Baker Lumber Co. v. Headley
...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.
... ... 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
... ... 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
...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 ......