Legal Opinion

Wolff v. Zurga

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided October 12, 1933No. 2 Div. 30PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

THOMAS, Justice.

The suit was for conversion of staves. The complaint was laid as the time of the conversion under a videlicet, which was alleged to have been committed prior to the commencement of the suit. Corona Coal & Iron Co. v. Bryan, 171 Ala. 86, 54 So. 522, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 878; Howton v. Mathias, 197 Ala. 457, 461, 73 So. 92; Ballenger v. Ballenger, 205 Ala. 596, 88 So. 826; MacArthur Bros. Co. v. Middleton, 200 Ala. 147, 75 So. 895. The staves were shown to have been removed before the suit.

It is decided that the ownership of personal property may be stated as a fact by a witness.…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. McMillan v. AikenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1920
  2. Bolling v. Kirby & BrotherSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
  3. Sovereign Camp, W. O .W. v. HoomesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
  4. Steiner Bros. v. TranumSupreme Court of Alabama · 1893
  5. Howton v. MathiasSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Walls v. BordersAlabama Court of Appeals · 1947

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API