Title: Davis v. Wolff
Citation: 304 So. 2d 203
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: November 7, 1974

304 So. 2d 203 (1974)
In re Frank DAVIS
v.
Pete WOLFF, III. Ex parte Frank Davis.
SC 915.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
November 7, 1974.
*204 Frank J. Mizell, Jr., Montgomery, for petitioner.
No brief for respondent.
HARWOOD, Justice.
The suit below was in detinue. The plaintiff Wolff claimed of the defendant Davis "one 1964 Model Sports Fury Automobile, Serial No. etc., to the value of Six Hundred dollars ($600.00) together with damages for the detention thereof, the property of the plaintiff."
The plaintiff made a detinue bond in the sum of $50.00. The defendant made a forthcoming bond in the sum of $1,200.00, and retained possession of the automobile.
Trial was before the court without a jury. After the trial the court entered a judgment for the plaintiff "for property sued for or its alternate value of $600.00 plus $200.00 damages for the detention, and costs for all of which let execution issue."
The Court of Civil Appeals, 53 Ala.App. 700, 304 So. 2d 201 in its opinion sets forth:
"The plaintiff-appellee's entire case in chief, as revealed by the record, is as follows:
It is to be noted in the preamble of Wolff's testimony the following statement:
In Ballentines Law Dictionary the word "substance" is defined as "that which is essential."
This same definition of "substance" is given in Cyclopedic Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed., with the additional statement: "It is a general rule that on any issue it is sufficient to prove the substance of the issue."
There is not one iota of testimony as to the value of the automobile, nor as to the amount of damages suffered by Wolff because of its detention.
In a detinue suit "judgment against either party must be for the property sued for, or its alternate value, with damages for its detention to the time of trial." Section 921, Title 7, Code of Alabama 1940.
In a detinue suit the burden of proving the value of the property sued for and the value of its detention, if any, is upon the plaintiff. Cable Piano Co. v. Estes, 206 Ala. 95, 89 So. 372. If the plaintiff in a detinue suit fails to prove alternate value as required by Section 921, supra, it is reversible error to refuse a defendant's requested affirmative charge. Gwin v. Emerald Co., Inc., 201 Ala. 384, 78 So. 758; Mackey v. Hall Auto Co., 27 Ala.App. 557, 176 So. 318; Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Tremer, 48 Ala.App. 675, 267 So. 2d 467.
The Court of Civil Appeals' opinion sets out:
The Court of Civil Appeals then treats the case as one in which all the evidence was not before the court, and affirms the judgment of the lower court.
The oral argument statement merely reflects what the record shows, that is that a portion of the testimony of Wolff was taken outside the presence of the court, though its substance is stated. This was all the evidence that the trial court had before it. It was insufficient to sustain the trial court's judgment.
The allegata and the probata simply do not correspond, the one with the other.
It is our conclusion the Court of Civil Appeals erred in affirming the trial court. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals affirming the judgment of the lower court is reversed.
Reversed and remanded.
All Justices concur.