Legal Opinion

Powell v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1887PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Appeal from Macon County Court! Tried, before Hon. W. H. Hurt. 1. Letcher had no right to explain the written contract. 2. It was clearly incompetent and illegal to admit Letcher’s account booh without proof of its genuineness and correctness. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 657. 3. Letcher had no lien for advances. The advances made to defendant, were made to him not as tenant, but as a wage-laborer. 4. It is not known where the offense was committed.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Macon County Court! Tried, before Hon. W. H. Hurt. 1. Letcher had no right to explain the written contract. 2. It was clearly incompetent and illegal to admit Letcher’s account booh without proof of its genuineness and correctness. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 657. 3. Letcher had no lien for advances. The advances made to defendant, were made to him not as tenant, but as a wage-laborer. 4. It is not known where the offense was committed. The value of the cotton was matter of proof, not of judicial knowledge.

1Opinion of the Court

STONE,. C. J.

The judgment of conviction in this case must be reversed for several reasons.

The defendant was indicted for selling or removing seed cotton, to which Letcher “had a lawful and valid claim under a written instrument, lien created by law for rent and advances, or other lawful and valid claim, verbal or written.” Code of 1886, § 3835. The indictment follows the form and is sufficient. — Form 77.

In Smith v. State, 84 Ala. 438, we reviewed Ellerson v. State, 69 Ala. 1, and qualified it in part.

*445The lien attempted to be established by the testimony in this ease, was asserted in three…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Hirschfelder v. Levy & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1881
  2. Ellerson v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1881
  3. Mooney v. HoughSupreme Court of Alabama · 1887
  4. Thompson v. PowellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
  5. Cockburn v. WatkinsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Drinkard v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1915

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

Powered by the Exa API