Copeland v. Jordan

1. While the evidence in this case was somewhat vague, that introduced by the plaintiff was sufficient to withstand a motion for a nonsuit, and it was error to sustain such motion.

2. In an ejectment case, whether a witness can testify generally, subject to cross-examination, that at a certain time a named person was in possession of a tract of land, or whether such testimony involves the statement of a conclusion and is therefore objectionable, is a question, as to which the authorities outside of this State are in conflict. See Wright v. State, 136 Ala. 139, 140 (34 So. 233); Driver v. King,…