Case ID: nc_206/html/0914-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Cueiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

J. H. WILLIAMSON et al., Administrators C. T. A., of IRA FREEMAN, Deceased, v. TRACY R. FREEMAN.
    (Filed 23 May, 1934.)
    Appeal by defendant from Oglesby, J., at October Term, 1933, of Montgomeey.
    No error.
    Ira Freeman died in Montgomery County on 11 March, 1928. His last will and testament was duly probated and recorded in the office of the clerk of the Superior Court of said county, prior to the ’commencement of this action. The plaintiffs have been duly appointed as administrators c. t. a. of tbe said Ira Freeman, deceased. Tbis action was begun on 11 May, 1933.
    It is alleged in tbe complaint that at tbe date of bis death, Ira Freeman was tbe owner and in tbe possession of a stock of goods, wares and merchandise, and that prior to tbe probate of bis last will and testament, tbe defendant, bis son, took tbe said stock of goods into bis possession, and wrongfully converted tbe same to bis own use. Tbe plaintiffs prayed judgment that they recover of tbe defendant tbe value of tbe said stock of goods.
    Tbe defendant in bis answer denied that bis father, Ira Freeman, was tbe owner of tbe stock of goods described in tbe complaint, at tbe date of bis death. He alleged that be was tbe owner of said stock of goods, and was in tbe lawful possession of tbe same. He prayed judgment that plaintiffs recover nothing by tbis action.
    At tbe trial, in response to tbe issues, tbe jury found that Ira Freeman was tbe owner of tbe stock of goods described in tbe complaint at tbe date of bis death, and that tbe net value of tbe same was $3,500.
    From judgment that plaintiffs recover of him the sum of $3,500, together with tbe costs of tbe action, tbe defendant appealed to tbe Supreme Court.
    
      B. 8. Hurley and Brown <& Brown for plaintiffs.
    
    
      John T. Brittain and B. T. Poole for defendant.
    
   Pee Cueiam.

Tbe assignments of error relied on by tbe defendant on bis appeal to tbis Court cannot be sustained. We find no error in tbe rulings of tbe court on defendant’s objections to evidence offered by tbe plaintiffs, at tbe trial, or in tbe instructions of tbe court to tbe jury.

Tbe evidence in support of tbe respective contentions of tbe parties was in sharp conflict, and was properly submitted to tbe jury. Tbe judgment must be affirmed.

No error.