Legal Opinion

Industrial Finance Corporation v. Turner

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 4, 1926No. 6 Div. 396PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.

On the trial in the court below the burden was on the plaintiff to show that at the time the suit was instituted it owned either a general or a special interest in the property sued for, coupled with an unqualified right to its immediate possession. Minge v. Clark, 193 Ala. 447, 452, 69 So. 421, and cases cited therein; Boulden v. Estey Organ Co., 92 Ala. 182, 9 So. 283; Henderson v. Felts, Admr., 58 Ala. 590, 593. Proof of a general legal title, of course, implies a right to possession; but proof of an equitable title, without supplemental proof of an accompanying right to possession, would…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Dows v. National Exchange Bank of MilwaukeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
  2. McCormick & Richardson v. Joseph & AndersonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
  3. New Haven Wire Co. CasesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1888
  4. Moors v. . KidderNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
  5. Hamilton v. BillingtonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Emerson-Brantingham Implement Co. v. ArringtonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1927
  2. Oil City Motor Co. v. CIT CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1935
  3. Beavers v. HarrisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1956
  4. Chapman v. Nitrate Agencies Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1932
  5. Industrial Finance Corporation v. Holcomb Motor Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1926

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API