Hrabowski's Ex'rx v. Herbert, Daniel & Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
Whit of Error to the County Court of Lowndes. This was an action of trover brought by the defendants in error against the plaintiff’s testator, to recover damages for the conversion of a gold watch,chain and seal. Pending the cause the testator died, and it was regularly revived against his executrix. On the trial the defendant excepted to the ruling of the presiding Judge.
Read the full summary
Whit of Error to the County Court of Lowndes. This was an action of trover brought by the defendants in error against the plaintiff’s testator, to recover damages for the conversion of a gold watch,chain and seal. Pending the cause the testator died, and it was regularly revived against his executrix. On the trial the defendant excepted to the ruling of the presiding Judge. From the bill of exceptions it appears that the plaintiff introduced one ■ Hartwell as a witness, who testified that the firm of Herbert, Daniel & Co. consisted of E. H. Herbert, Isaac N. Daniel and N. Cook, and did…
1Opinion of the CourtCollier, C. J.
It was certainly competent for the plaintiffs to show, that the watch, with the conversion of which the testator was charged, was once the property of the plaintiffs, and in their possession as such. Thus far the testimony of the -witness, Hartwell, is not here objected to. Whether it was admissible as to the other facts related by him, it is unnecessary to inquire. The bill of exceptions sets out all that the witness testified on the part of the plaintiffs, and the defendant objected to it en masse. Now it has been repeatedly adjudged by us, that where evidence embraces several distinct…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Thomas v. WareAlabama Court of Appeals · 1967
- Smith v. WoodingSupreme Court of Alabama · 1852
- Cooper v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1963
- McCargo & Cordle v. CrutcherSupreme Court of Alabama · 1855
- Melton v. TroutmanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1849