Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

21 Ala. App. 185

106 So 394

Polytinskey v. Brindley

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided November 10, 1925

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1925-11-10

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1925-11-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently January 1965

8 state decisions

4019251930194019501960decided

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 →

RICE, J.

¶1 The appellee brought suit against the appellant, seeking damages for *186 the wrongful taking of certain cotton. His claim was based upon a mortgage executed to him by E. O. and F. B. Garner, conveying “the entire cotton crop (of said Garners) raised in Morgan county for year 1919”; the allegation being made that appellant purchased the cotton, the basis of the suit, from the said Garners. The appellant, against whom judgment was rendered in the court below, requested the general affirmative charge in his favor, and the propriety of its refusal is the chief question before us for decision.

¶2 Before plaintiff (appellee) was entitled to recover, the burden was upon him to show by the evidence that the cotton purchased by appellant was some of that conveyed to plaintiff (appellee) in the mortgage referred to. This he failed to do. We can find no evidence from which the jury could legally infer that the cotton purchased'by appellant from the said Garner was any of that conveyed to appellee in his mortgage from the Garners. Of consequence the trial court was in error in refusing to give, at appellant’s request, the general affirmative charge.

¶3 Reversed and remanded.

/21/alaapp/185 · .json · Public domain