Wheeler Motor Co. v. Stringer

Decision Date19 March 1931
Docket Number1 Div. 640.
Citation133 So. 10,222 Ala. 494
PartiesWHEELER MOTOR CO. v. STRINGER.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Alex T. Howard, Judge.

Action of trover by Louise Stringer against the Wheeler Motor Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals.

Affirmed.

Lyons Chamberlain & Courtney, of Mobile, for appellant.

Stevens McCorvey, McLeod, Goode & Turner and C. M. A. Rogers, all of Mobile, for appellee.

GARDNER J.

Appellee recovered a judgment against appellant in an action of trover for the conversion of her Nash automobile on February 20 1928, which was carried from her home to appellant's garage and returned the same day, but in a damaged condition.

The sole question on this appeal relates to the action of the court in refusing to defendant the affirmative charge as duly requested, the argument in support of which rests upon the theory that the evidence is insufficient to show that one Minor Wells, who confessedly took the car on this occasion, was the agent of defendant acting within the line and scope of his authority, citing Toranto v. Hattaway, 219 Ala. 520, 122 So. 816; McCormack Bros. Motor Co. v. Holland, 218 Ala. 200, 118 So. 387; Cruse-Crawford Mfg. Co. v. Rucker, 220 Ala. 101, 123 So. 897; Tullis v. Blue, 216 Ala. 577, 114 So. 185; Dowdell v. Beasley, 205 Ala. 130, 87 So. 18; Alabama Power Co. v. Watts, 218 Ala. 78, 117 So. 425.

That Minor Wells was on the date in question the agent and employee of the defendant is without dispute. The relation of principal and agent or employer and employee is therefore established, and the remaining question is whether or not said Wells at the time was acting within the line and scope of his employment. If the evidence suffices for a reasonable inference to that effect to be drawn by the jury, the affirmative charge was properly refused. Liverpool, etc., Ins. Co. v. McCree, 213 Ala. 534, 105 So. 901; Wilson v. Windham, 213 Ala. 31, 104 So. 232; Alabama Power Co. v. Watts, supra.

The determination of this question rests upon the facts of each particular case. In the instant case Wells left defendant's garage and went to plaintiff's home, saw and examined the car, and returned to the garage to secure a helper. The two then got the car and brought it to defendant's used car department, and proceeded to "enter it up" and then discovered he had the wrong car. He went to "make a collection or get the car." Wells' first testimony tended to show he went at the instance and under instructions of some one else, but upon further examination seems to have contradicted this statement and testified he was not employed by these third parties, but was in defendant's employ, and finally concluded by saying he did not take the car for himself. To...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Hinton & Sons v. Strahan
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 27 Junio 1957
    ...argument to the jury by the opposite party. * * *' To like effect, see Martin v. Davis, 224 Ala. 648, 141 So. 667; Wheeler Motor Co. v. Stringer, 222 Ala. 494, 133 So. 10. The issue in the instant case was whether defendant had furnished a safe place for plaintiff to work, and no member of ......
  • Roberts Const. Co. v. Henry
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 7 Marzo 1957
    ...in the matter of inferences drawn for illustration or figures of speech adopted in pressing a point.' See also Wheeler Motor Co. v. Stringer, 222 Ala. 494, 133 So. 10; Ex parte Messer, 228 Ala. 16, 152 So. There was certainly nothing inflammatory about the statement and we think the court w......
  • City of Bessemer v. Clowdus
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 17 Junio 1954
    ...v. Allen, 218 Ala. 416, 118 So. 662. See, also, Alabama Power Co. v. Talmadge, 207 Ala. 86(21), 95-96, 93 So. 548; Wheeler Motor Co. v. Stringer, 222 Ala. 494, 133 So. 10; Kirkland v. Kirkland, 236 Ala. 120, 181 So. 96; Waller v. State, 242 Ala. 1(5), 4 So.2d 911; Jarrell v. State, 251 Ala.......
  • Newman v. Lee, 7 Div. 28.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 19 Marzo 1931

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