East Tenn., Va. & Ga. R. R. v. Cary
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Shelby. Tried before the Hon. S. H. Sprott. This was an action of trover by the appellee, C. W. Cary, against the appellant, the East Tenn., va. & Ga. R. R. Co., for the conversion of cross-ties alleged to be the property of appellee. The plaintiff claimed the cross-ties under a contract of purchase from one McConaughy, who cut them, and the defendant claimed them under a contract with one Shortridge.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Shelby. Tried before the Hon. S. H. Sprott. This was an action of trover by the appellee, C. W. Cary, against the appellant, the East Tenn., va. & Ga. R. R. Co., for the conversion of cross-ties alleged to be the property of appellee. The plaintiff claimed the cross-ties under a contract of purchase from one McConaughy, who cut them, and the defendant claimed them under a contract with one Shortridge. The court, on the request in writing of the plaintiff, gave the following two charges: “ 1. Though the jury believe, from the evidence, that McConaughy cut…
1Opinion of the CourtStone, C. J.
— The charges were given at the instance of the plaintiff below — appellee here — and there was a general exception to the giving of the two. In such case, unless both charges are faulty, the exception avails nothing. 3 Brick. Dig. 80, §§ 34, 35,41; Bedwell v. Bedwell, 77 Ala. 587.
The charge first asked and given is unquestionably free from error. Neither the facts hypothesized, nor any testimony found in this record, tended to show the cross-ties belonged to Shortridge.
No other question is raised by the exceptions.
Affirmed.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bedwell v. BedwellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
3Cited by3 opinions
- Black v. Pratt Coal & Coke Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1888
- Stitt v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. CampbellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1892