Case ID: ala-app_20/html/0598-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SAMFORD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(104 So. 444)
    MILNER v. J. H. LEWIS & SON.
    (8 Div. 206.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    May 12, 1925.)
    1. Evidence <&wkey;471 (26) — Witness may properly testify as to his ownership of personal property.
    A witness may properly testify that he is the owner of specific personal property, such testimony being as to fact and not conclusion.
    2. Appeal and error <&wkey;93l (I), 1011(1) — Presumptions are in favor of findings based on . conflicting evidence taken ore tenus.
    Presumptions are in favor of trial court’s findings on conflicting evidence taken ore tenus, and they will not.be disturbed unless contrary to great weight of evidence.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; W. W. Haralson, Judge.
    Action in detinue for a piano by J. H. -Lewis & Son against George I. Milner. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    H. G. Bailey, of Boaz, for appellant.
    Testimony that plaintiffs owned the property was a conclusion of the witness, and should have been excluded.
    J. P. Brown, of Boaz, for appellees.
    ■ There was no error in admission of testimony.
   SAMFORD, J.

The first two assignments of error relate to the rulings of the court in permitting plaintiff to testify that he and his son were the owners of the piano in question. This did not call for a conclusion, but was testimony as to a fact. A witness may properly testify as to who is the owner of personal property. Daffron v. Crump, 69 Ala. 77; Steiner v. Tranum, 98 Ala. 315, 13 So. 365; Rasco v. Jefferson, 142 Ala. 705, 38 So. 246.

The cause was tried before the court without a jury. The evidence was taken ore tenus, and was conflicting. Under these conditions the presumptions are in favor of the findings of the trial court, which this court will not disturb unless such findings are contrary to the great weight of the evidence. Kiser Co. v. Pope, 18 Ala. App. 54, 88 So. 197; Schlossburg v. Willingham, 17 Ala. App. 678, 88 So. 191.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed. 
      
      &wkey;For other cases see same topic and KEV-NUMBER in all Key-NumDered Digests and Indexes