Hooper v. Pierce

Decided June 13, 1907

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1907-06-13

Heard before Hon. W. W. Haralson. Detinue by A. B. Hooper against B. F. Pierce for the recovery of three bales of cotton, for which plaintiff executed Ms forthcoming bond and on which the property was delivered to plaintiff. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Counsel discuss Wo assignments of error relative to the admission of evidence and cite authorities to support their contention.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1918

1 state decisions

Relies on Gerson & Sons v. Norman

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · Decided 1907-06-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

McCLELLAN, j.

¶1Action of detinue for decovery of cotton. The plaintiff had executed in proper order a forthcoming bond for the property, and there was judgment for defendant.

¶2The bill of exceptions is silent as to any evidence of value of the property in question, and yet it appears that the court, by specially requested charge, instructed the jury that, if they found for the defendant, they should assess the value of the property at $117. The giving of this charge was error, for which the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded. — Gerson v. Norman, 111 Ala. 433, 20 South. 453.

¶3There are two other errors assigned, but there is no merit in them.

¶4Reversed and remanded.

Tyson, C. J., and Dowdell and Anderson, JJ., con-