DePoister v. Gilmer
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the City Court of Birmingham'. Tried before the Hon. Henry A. Sharpe. This action was brought by Morgan S. Gilmer, against George O. DePoister, to recover damages for an alleged 'trespass on a tract of land, which was described in the complaint as “the west half of the south-east quarter, and the south-east quarter of the south-west quarter, section thirty-two (32), township seventeen (17) south', range two (2) west;” and,was commenced on the 16th March, 1886.…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the City Court of Birmingham'. Tried before the Hon. Henry A. Sharpe. This action was brought by Morgan S. Gilmer, against George O. DePoister, to recover damages for an alleged 'trespass on a tract of land, which was described in the complaint as “the west half of the south-east quarter, and the south-east quarter of the south-west quarter, section thirty-two (32), township seventeen (17) south', range two (2) west;” and,was commenced on the 16th March, 1886. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and a special plea averring that he entered, cut timber, quarried stone, — The…
1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.
— The evidence tended to show, and from it the jury were authorized to infer, that the plaintiff was in the actual occupancy of the land in controversy, through his agent; and the testimony also tended to identify this land as being the same with the tract called “the Morgan S. Gilmer land,” which is shown to have been trespassed on by the defendant. The general affirmative charge, therefore, requested in behalf of the defendant, which was equivalent to a demurrer to the evidence, was properly refused by the court, because it infringed on the prerogative of the jury.
Affirmed.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Curry v. ShelbySupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
- Cucullu v. Brakenridge Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1897