Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

45 Ala. 354

Robinson v. Richards

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 15, 1871

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1871-01-15

Tried before Hon. Jas. Q, Smith. This was an action of detinue, commenced by the appellant, M. O. Robinson, against the appellee, Aaron Richards, to recover the mules. Appellant having made the statutory affidavit and bond, the sheriff took into his possession two mules sued for; and appellee failing to give bond within the time prescribed by law, the mules were delivered to the appellant.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently September 2003

2 state decisions

Relies on Brown v. Brown · Wittick's Adm'r v. Keiffer

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1871-01-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

B. F. SAFFOLD, J.

¶1—In detinue, the judgment is for the specific thing detained, or its value, together with the damages occasioned by the detention, with costs. — 1 Chit. Gen. Pract. 812. There is no option of delivering up the goods or paying the value, but on the contrary, the judgment and execution are absolutely for the restoration of the chattel, if the same can be found, together with damages and costs; and only in the alternative as to the value, in case the chattel should be destroyed or eloigned.— 1 Chit. Gen. Pract. 814.

¶2The Bevised Code does not chaDge the common law in this respect, but is in conformity with it. — §§ 2595, 2596.

¶3In Witticks, Adm’r, v. Keiffer, 31 Ala. 199, there is a slight intimation of an election of the wrong-doer, but this can only refer to the power he has of eloigning the property, else why allow a distringas, or attachment ?

¶4The damages go with the recovery, whether of the chattel or its alternate value.

¶5As the verdict is right, we will amend the judgment by striking out the words “ at his election,” on the authority of Brown v. Brown, 5 Ala. 508.

¶6The judgment is affirmed.

/45/ala/354 · .json · Public domain