Case ID: ala_162/html/0125-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ANDERSON, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Montgomery v. Patterson.
    
      Detinue.
    
    (Decided June 17, 1909.
    49 South. 1027.)
    1. Detinue; Title to Sustain. — In order to recover in detinue plaintiff must establish title to the goods in controversy.
    2. Appeal and Error; Funding of Trial Court; Concltisiveness. — • The finding of the trial court on the facts will not be disturbed on appeal, unless the verdict is plainly contrary to the great weight of the evidence.
    Appeal from Etowah Circuit Court.
    Heard before Hon. John H. Disque.
    Detinue by A. Montgomery against J. L. Mofbut for a mule. Upon suggestion that Patterson claimed the mule notice was issued to him and he came in and defended. From a judgment for the substituted defendant plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Tate & Walker, for appellant.
    The rule is that in order for a claimant to. recover he must show that his title existed prior to the time he interposed the claim. He must recover on the strength of Ms own title and not the weakness of his adversary. — Seisel v. Folrner, 103 Ala. 495] Donaldson v. Waters, 30 Ala. 175.
    Goodhue & Blackwood, for appellee.
    The questions presented are purely of fact, and under the evidence plaintiff failed to carry the burden by showing title in himself. — 3 Mayf. 47.
   ANDERSON, J.

This was an action of detinue for a mule, and the plaintiff bad to establish a title to same in order to recover. the plaintiff sold Patterson the mule, but claims to have retained the title to same until the purchase money was paid. Patterson denied a conditional sale, but claims that it. was absolute, and that be paid the purchase money. the trial .court» saw and beard all the witnesses, who were examined ore tenas, and the finding upon the- facts was like unto the verdict of a jury, and will not be disturbed, unless it is plainly erroneous. — Woodrow v. Howving, 105 Ala. 240, 16 South. 720, which as been repeatedly cited and re-affirmed, upon this proposition, by this court. We do not think that the judgment is plainly erroneous.

Tbe trial court committed no reversible error in ruling upon tbe evidence. Tbe judgment of tbe circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Dowdell, O. J., and McClellan and Sayre, JJ., concur.