Case ID: ala_90/html/0440-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SOMERVILLE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Henry & Co. v. Powell.
    
      Statutory Detinue for Hides, Oxen and Cows.
    
    1. Assessing value, of property, on verdict for defendant. — In a statutory action for the recovery oí personal property in specie, the plaintiff having obtained the possession oí the property by executing the necessary bond, the failure of the jury to assess the alternate value, on returning a verdict for the defendant (Code, § 2719); is an error which will work a reversal at the instance of the plaintiff, although only a judgment for costs was rendered against him.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Marshall.
    Tried before the Lion. John B. Tally.
    This action was brought 'by Sam. Henry and James F. Henry, suing as partners, against William Powell, to recover several mules, oxen, cows, &c., particularly described; and was commenced on the 31st January, 1887. The plaintiffs executed the necessary bonds, and obtained the possession of the property. The cause was tried on issue joined, and the jury returned a verdict in these words: “ We, the jury; find for the defendant; ” on which the court rendered judgment, “ that the defendant have and recover judgment against the plaintiff for the costs in this behalf expended, for which let .execution issue.” The appeal is sued out by the plaintiffs, and they assign as error the failure of the jury to assess the value of the property, and the judgment of the court.
    Abercrombie, Bilbro & Whatley, and Jno. J. Winston, Jr., for appellants,
    cited Warehouse Co. v. Johnson, 85 Ala. 178; Jones v. Anderson, 82 Ala. 302; Code, §2719.
    Brown, Holliday & Street, contra,
    contended that the plaintiffs could not possibly be injured by the failure to assess the value of the property, and could not complain of an error which could not prejudice them. They cited Jones v. Pullen, 66 Ala. 306; Ernst v. I£ogue, 86 Ala. 502; Wood v. Coman, 56 Ala. 283.
   SOMERVILLE, J.

The judgment must be reversed, on the authority of Jones v. Anderson, 82 Ala. 302, and cases there cited, as well as by requirement of the statute itself. — Code, § 2719.

Reversed and remanded.