The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-03-27
WORTHINGTON V. A. G. RHODES
 AND SON COMPANY.

.
 Detinue for Watch.-( (Decided Nov.
 23, 1905.)--(39 So. Rep. 614.)
 1.-Detinue: Demands: Conditional Sale.--No demand is necessary to en- title the original seller to maintain detinue for the recovery of property against the second buyer. when the first buyer sold the property without consent of the seller, and after default In the payments. under contract of conditional sale, providing that the seller might retaae the property if the buyer sold the property without cau. sent of seller. or made default in any payment.
 2-Conditional Sales; Record: Ex- ception.-The Act requiring condition al sales to be recorded (Acts 189S-99 D. t120) to affect the rights of innocent gomery county.
 Appeal from Montgomery City Court.
 Heard before Hon. A D. Sayre.
 Affirmed. Opinion by Denson, J.
 Haralson, Dowdell and Simpson. u. concur.
 L. & N.R. R. CO. V. EVE QUINN.
 Action by Quinn for Damages for
 Eviction from Defendants Train
 on which she was Passenger.-
 CDecided Dec q. 19O5.)-(ss sc.
 Rep 61T)
 i.-Carriers: Injury to Passenger: Charges predicated upon the negli- gence of defendants servants are properly refused, where the plaintiffs s evidence shows direct wrong on the part of such servant.
 Appeal from Blob circuit Court
 Heard before Hon. B. M Miller.
 Reversed and Remanded. Opinion by Anderson, J
 Tyson, Simpson and Denson, JJ., concur
 L & N R. R. co. V. OLIVER QUINN.
 Action by Husband for Damages for
 putting Wife and Infant Children
 off Train.--(D Decided Nov. 2S, 1905.)
 (s9 So Rep. e16.)
 1.-Damages: Action by Husband for Injuries to wife and children.-A hus- band suing for damages sustained 10 him on account of injuries to wife and Infant children may prove as an eie" ment of damage the value of his ser vices while nursing his wife; also, as an element of damage that he hired a nurse for his children during wife's sickness and the value of his services, where charged in the complaint.
 2-Appeal; Invited Error: Evidence. Where defendant, on direct examina- ton of It's witness brought out testi- mony confessedly inadmissible. 1t can lot complain f plaintiff Is allowed 10 not complain if plaintiff is allowed to crossexamlne the witness as to such tai evidence.
 s.-Carriers; Ejecting Passengers; Coercion: Evidence.-Coercion may re- suit from fear produced in the mind, as well as from physical force: and where there was evidence tending to show that defendants conductor told passenger that it was dangerout for her and little children to go on to S.. and other evidence tending to show that this was not true, the question of wrongful coercion of passenger vel non should be submitted to the jury for their determination.
 4.-Trial Instructions.-A charge which instruets the jury that belief on their part that the conductor told plaintiffs wife at or before the time she got off the train, that he would ra- ther she would get off at N. A. Junc- tion where she did get off, and she was induced by this statement to get off, plaintiff cannot recover is not abstract in an action for ejecting his wife and children passengers from a train where there is evidence to that effect. Nor 1t is subject to the criticism of singling out parts Of the evidence.
 Appeal from Bibb Circuit Court.
 Heard before Hon. B. Nj. Miller.
 Reversed and remanded. Opinion by Tyson. J.
 Simpson. Anderson and Denson. JJ.. concur,