Wilkerson v. McDougal
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Eussell. Tried before Hon. Littleberry Strange. This suit was commenced in March, 1852, and was an action of detinue for the recovery of slaves, by the appellant against the appellee. It lingered by successive continuances until the fall term of the court in 1869, when the defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that slavery having been abolished in the State, the plaintiff can not recover.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Eussell. Tried before Hon. Littleberry Strange. This suit was commenced in March, 1852, and was an action of detinue for the recovery of slaves, by the appellant against the appellee. It lingered by successive continuances until the fall term of the court in 1869, when the defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that slavery having been abolished in the State, the plaintiff can not recover. This demurrer was sustained, and judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant. The sole question for consideration is the sufficiency of the demurrer.
1Opinion of the CourtB. F. Saffold, J.
The matter of demurrer ought to have been pleaded puis darrein continuance. But we will consider its sufficiency as a defense.
It is conceded that the destruction of the property would not affect the question of recovery. The point is made, that the plaintiff’s title to the slaves failed before the trial, *518and therefore he is not entitled to a judgment for the specific property, or its value. The defendant may defeat the action in these particulars, by showing a superior title in a third person, with which he connects his own, whether it existed prior to the commencement of the suit, or was…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Cole v. ConollySupreme Court of Alabama · 1849
- McElvain v. MuddSupreme Court of Alabama · 1870
- Rose v. PearsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1868
3Cited by1 opinion
- Heard v. HicksSupreme Court of Alabama · 1893