Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Minor 100

Peters v. Johnson

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1822

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1822-12-15

JOHNSON and Connally brought an action of Trover against Peters' in the Superior Court of Mobile County. By the indorsement bn the writ, they stated that their action was to recover damages to the amount of $407TyV, the value of 362. cedar logs. In the writ and declaration the damages were laid at $800. In the declaration it is alleged that the logs came to the possession of Peters by finding or otherwise. Plea, not guilty, and issue thereon.

Decided 1822-12-15

¶1Opinion of the Court delivered by

Judge Crenshaw.

¶2In the action of Trover, the allegation that the goods came to the defendant’s possession by finding is a mere fiction of law. It is not. necessary that it should be proved, nor is it material that it should appear how they came to .his possession. The words “ by finding or otherwise,” may be rejected as surplusage. At any rate, the defective statement (if it be defective) is cured by the verdict.

¶3The Jury, on the issue of guilty or not guilty, “ find for the plaintiffs $583.” To conclude that this finding was not predicated on their conclusion that the defendant was guilty, we must suppose them to have been destitute of common sense. It is no distortion of language to say that by the sense and meaning of the verdict, the issue is found for the plaintiffs, and their damages assessed. From the Record it sufficiently appears that the judgment was given by the Court, and not by the clerk, as was contended in the argument. It would be strange doctrine to presume every thing, or any thing, against, and nothing in favour of, a judgment. I will not imagine that it was the consideration of the clerk and not of the Court. The other assignments have been abandoned.

¶4It is the unanimous opinion of the Court that the judgment be affirmed.

/1/minor/100 · .json · Public domain