Adams v. Maxcy

The finding of the jury that there was no provision made by appellant under which the stock in his possession could be sold at any time when in their judgment respondent and his co-owner A. W. Golz saw fit to sell, is not sustained by the evidence. This leaves respondent without grounds on which to base his claim that the stock was converted by the appellant to his own use. The arrangement under which that opportunity was afforded respondent and Golz appears from the testimony of the parties and is abundantly corroborated by their acts. Respondent and Golz *243were employees of appellant. They…