Gerson & Sons v. Norman
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the City Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. Thomas M. Arrington. This was a statutory action of detinue, brought by the appellee against the appellants. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the City Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. Thomas M. Arrington. This was a statutory action of detinue, brought by the appellee against the appellants. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. In its general charge to the jury, the court gave them the following instruction : “That the agreement of M. D. Eiland of Dec. 7th, 1(893, being in writing, spoke for itself, and was to be construed by the court, and that the court charged the jury that said paper, of itself, without any other evidence outside of that writing, gave no lien to M. D. Eiland, and…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCLELLAN, J.
This is an action of detinue prosecuted by Norman against Gerson & Son. Plaintiff showed title to the property — three bales of cotton — under a mortgage executed by Williams, who had grown the cotton on land belonging to Eiland. Defendants claimed the property under an alleged or supposed lien for the price or value of supplies and advances furnished and made by them to Williams to enable him tfi plant, cultivate and gather the crop of which this cotton is apart. The mortgage to plaintiff was executed January 6th, 1894. The supplies were furnished by the defendants during that year under the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bell & Co. v. HurstSupreme Court of Alabama · 1883
- Clanton v. EatonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
3Cited by5 opinions
- Gwin v. Emerald Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1918
- Hensley v. OrendorffSupreme Court of Alabama · 1907
- Hooper v. PierceSupreme Court of Alabama · 1907
- Landrum & Co. v. WrightAlabama Court of Appeals · 1914
- Willis v. Wilson Mercantile Co.Alabama Court of Appeals · 1917