Beazley v. Mitchell
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the County Court of Sumter. Detinue by Beazley against Mitchell, for a gold watch. The declaration is in the usual form, to which the defendant pleaded, with other pleas, one in the terms following, to wit: “ Actio non, because the defendant says, that on or about the 10th day of November, 1842, at the county, The defendant demurred to this replication, and the court overruled the demurrer. Afterwards, the plaintiff had judgment on verdict on the other pleas.
Read the full summary
Error to the County Court of Sumter. Detinue by Beazley against Mitchell, for a gold watch. The declaration is in the usual form, to which the defendant pleaded, with other pleas, one in the terms following, to wit: “ Actio non, because the defendant says, that on or about the 10th day of November, 1842, at the county, The defendant demurred to this replication, and the court overruled the demurrer. Afterwards, the plaintiff had judgment on verdict on the other pleas. The judgment overruling the demurrer, is assigned as error. insisted, that no action can be maintained against the purchaser…
1Opinion of the CourtGoldthwaite, J.
The question in this case certainly deserves to be classed as one of the curiosities of the law ; and not the less so, because it seems to have been held, by at least one eminent judge, that the owner of a chattel stolen cannot have trover against one who purchases from the thief,' until after the conviction of the felon. [Gimson v. Woodfall, 2 C. & P. 41.] Chief Justice Best, before whom this case was tried, seems to have rested his decision on Harwood v. Smith, 2 Term, 750, but neither that nor any other adjudication in bank sustains it. In that case, the sheep, for converting which the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Wolffe v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1885
- Martin's v. MartinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1854
- Bell's Adm'r v. TroySupreme Court of Alabama · 1859