Legal Opinion

Barnett v. Wooldridge

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Decided July 23, 1986No. Civ. 5270Published

1Opinion

MERITS

Barnett argues through able counsel that the evidence is such that the trial court erred in awarding to him only $1,500 for the wrongful detention of the drill. He argues that his testimony that the reasonable rental value of the drill was $7,000 per month was undisputed but that he claimed *461only $4,000 from Wooldridge for each month of its detention and that he should have been compensated at the rate of $4,000 monthly from May 20, 1980 to December 2, 1980, when he was awarded possession of the drill.

After a view of the entire record, the following evidence is that which most readily…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Balls v. CrumpSupreme Court of Alabama · 1952
  2. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Howell Bros. Truck & Auto Repair Inc.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1975
  3. Knox v. MooreCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1985

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API