Bolling v. Fannin
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from City Court of Montgomery. Tried before Hon. T. M. Arrington. cited 1 Gr. Ev. 115; 117 ; McDonald v. Games, 90 Ala. 147; Dismukes v. Poison, 67 Ala. 388; 18 Wall; 541; Meyer v. Hearst, 75 Ala. 394; Mattison v. State, 55 Ala. 224. cited 2 Phil, on Ev. 43 ; Holley v. Holmes, 5 Ala. 642; Moore v. Andreics, 5 Port. 107 ; Aciden v. Hickman, 63 Ala. 494; Adams v. Robinson, 65 Ala. 591; Warner v. Price, 3 Wend. 397; 45 S.
1Opinion of the CourtColeman, J.
— The appellee sued defendant Bolling, in detinue to recover a mule called Pete, and damages for its detention.
To recover in detinue, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to show the possession of the defendant at the time *620of the institution of the suit. — Behr v. Gerson, 95 Ala. 438; Graham v. Myers, 74 Ala. 434; Gilbreath v. Jones, 66 Ala. 129; Miller v. Hampton, 37 Ala. 342. This principle of law was relied upon as a defense to the present action. The summons issued on the 13th of January and returned executed on the 14th of Jany. 1891.
The testimony of the defendant R. E. Bolling, tended to…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Pearson v. DarringtonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1858
- Gilbreath v. JonesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880
- Miller v. HamptonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1861
- Echols v. HubbardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
- Hancock v. KellySupreme Court of Alabama · 1886
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Warten v. BlackSupreme Court of Alabama · 1915
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Yeilding Bros.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1932
- Loveman, Joseph Loeb v. McQueenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1919
- Roll v. DockerySupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- Alabama Trunk & Luggage Co. v. HauerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1926
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.