Foy v. Cochran

Decided November 15, 1889

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1889-11-15

Tried before the Hon. Jesse M. Carmichael. This action was brought by James E. Foy, against T. J. Maddox, to recover a mule, with damages for its detention; and was commenced on the 5th January, 1888. The defendant disclaimed title in himself, and suggested that Mrs. Willie P. Cochran, without collusion with him, claimed the mule; and thereupon she appeared, and defended the action. Code, § 2611.

Relies on Huddleston v. Huey

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1889-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently March 1935

9 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 →

STONE, C. J.

¶1It is not disputed in this case, and is clearly proved, that at the time Mrs. Cornelia J. Cochran sold and conveyed the mule in controversy to Foy, the plaintiff in this action, Mrs. Willie P. Cochran, the defendant, had the mule in possession, claiming to be the owner thereof,

¶2 *355This being the case, no matter what right or title Mrs. Cornelia J. may have held, she could not convey to Foy any right which would maintain this action. A right to sue for property adversely held, can not be the subject of legal transfer.- — Huddleston v. Huey, 73 Ala. 215; 1 Brick. Dig. 52, § 44.

¶3The principle announced above renders the consideration of all other questions unnecessary, as under no circumstances can the plaintiff maintain this suit.

¶4Affirmed.