¶1On authority, this case was correctly decided by the court below. It seems to have been a Well settled rule of the ancient common law, that the owner of a chattel retained his right of property in it, so long as it was capable of being identified as the same thing, although its *592form might have been entirely changed. [Viner’s Ab. Prop. F, 5.] The precise question with reference to property in coal, where the wood belonged to the plaintiff, was determined in Curtis v. Guant, 6 Johns. 168. So, where logs were converted, and sawed into boards or shingles, it has been held that trover for the boards or shingles may be brought. [Betts v. Lee, 5 Johns. 348; Brown v. Sax, 7 Cowen, 95.] It is posssble the jury might consider the value of the defendant’s labor, on the rough material, in estimating the damages; but as to this we give no opinion, as no point upon it was made in the court below. The contrary, however, was held in the case last cited. Judgment affirmed.
12 Ala. 590
Riddle v. Driver
Decided June 15, 1847
Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1847-06-15
Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Talladega. Trover by Driver against Riddle, for fifteen hundred bushels coal. At the trial, there was evidence tending to show a quantity of wood had been cut by the hands in tjie employment of the plaintiff, in the vicinity of a coaling ground, on public land.. There was also evidence tending to show that these hands, when they cut the wood, were in the employment of the defendant.
Relies on Curtis v. Groat · Betts v. Lee
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1847-06-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently November 1899
5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →