Lindsey v. Perry
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the County Court of Talladega County. THIS was an action of detinue, brought by the present.plaintiff, against the present defendant, to recover,an ox. Under the general issue, the. defendant Obtained judgment.
Read the full summary
Error to the County Court of Talladega County. THIS was an action of detinue, brought by the present.plaintiff, against the present defendant, to recover,an ox. Under the general issue, the. defendant Obtained judgment. Pending the trial in the court below, a bill of exceptions was sealed by the court, from which it is shown, that the plaintiff proved, that the ox sued for, was the property of the plaintiff, raised by one Shelton? and, by him, sold to the plaintiff, and that the ox had been in the possession of the plaintiff, before this suit was brought. That the plaintiff demanded the ox…
1Opinion of the CourtOrmond, J.
— No case has been referred to establishing the principle, that an action of detinue, will lie after the destruction or death of the chattel sued for ; nor have our researches enabled •us to discover any: on principle, we think such an action cannot be maintained. The action is brought for the recovery of the specific article or its alternative value. We do not subscribe to the position that, it is at the election of the party to deliver the article after the judgment or not, at his pleasure, where it is in ;his power to deliver it. But the writ is framed, and its precise object is, to…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. JonesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1887
- Lehman Bros. v. McQueenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880
- Vandeventer & Co. v. FordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1877
- Jarrell v. LillieSupreme Court of Alabama · 1866
- Shulman, Goetter & Weil v. Brantley & CopelandSupreme Court of Alabama · 1873
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.