Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

207 Ala. 346

92 So 604

McDaniels v. Payne

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided April 20, 1922

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1922-04-20

Relies on Pilcher v. Surles

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1922-04-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently May 1977

11 state decisions

50192219301940195019601970decided

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 →

GARDNER, J.

¶1 Appellant shipped two trunks, consigned to himself, from Ensley, Ala., to Gary, Ind., the Southern Railway being the initial carrier. The trunks were never received or delivered to appellant, and this suit was brought to recover the value of the trunks and contents.

¶2 The cause was tried before the court without a jury upon the depositions of the appellant and his wife and exhibits thereto, and on the part of appellee upon the oral testimony of the two clerks at its freight depot at Gary, Ind., in connection with answer of appellant to interrogation propounded by appellee. Judgment was rendered foy the plaintiff in the sum of $180, and he appeals-therefrom upon the ground that the amount of damages awarded is inadequate. This is-the sole question here presented.

¶3 The depositions of the plaintiff and his wife place the valuation of the contents of these trunks at something in excess of $1,000. It appears that these trunks remained in defendant’s warehouse at Gary for more than a year, when they were sold as unclaimed' freight, and the two witnesses for defendant testified to having opened and examined the contents of the trunks. They exhibited before the court some of the articles taken therefrom, and stated that the entire contents were of similar character and of very little value. To discuss the evidence in detail-would serve no useful purpose, and such has not been the policy of this court since the passage of the Acts of 1915, p. 594. Pilcher v. Surles, 202 Ala. 643, 81 South. 585.

¶4 Suffice it to say that after a most careful examination of the evidence we find no just cause for disturbing the finding of the court upon the disputed question of fact involved, and the judgment appealed from wilL be accordingly affirmed.

¶5 Affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. J., and SAYRE and MILLER, JJ., concur.
/207/ala/346 · .json · Public domain