Court Opinion

ID: 9824966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:48:46.050925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:17.436174
License: Public Domain

RICE, J.
This was a suit by appellee against appellant for damages for the conversion of an automobile truck. There are no questions of law, involving other than elementary principles, raised. Appellant and appellee were allowed the utmost latitude in presenting their respective theories of the case to the jury. Briefly, the truck in question having been left by appellee with appellant, and having been by appellant loaned or hired to one Bains, it was appellee’s claim that appellant, a bailee of the truck, acted without authority in letting Bains have it, and, the truck being destroyed by fire while in Bains’ possession, was liable to appellee for its value. Appellant claims that he made a straight-out purchase of the truck from appellee, and that hence there could be no conversion. The jury found in favor of appellee.
*483We do not read the record as disclosing more, with' reference to appellant’s contention that the trial court gave the general affirmative charge in appellee’s favor, than that the court gave to the jury a form of verdict to be used by them in the event they found a verdict in plaintiff’s (appellee’s) favor.
We find no evidence in the record supporting appellant’s argument that the policy of insurance held by appellee on the truck had been, or was, assigned to appellant.
We can find no prejudicial error in the record, and none has been pointed out to us by appellant. Let the judgment be affirmed.
Affirmed.