From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Huff v. Dyer

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Feb 5, 1918
77 So. 926 (Ala. Crim. App. 1918)

Opinion

5 Div. 240.

January 22, 1918. Rehearing Denied February 5, 1918.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Chilton County; A.H. Alston, Judge.

Action by W.C. Dyer against J.W. Huff. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Middleton Reynolds, of Clanton, for appellant. Pettus, Fuller Lapsley, of Selma, for appellee.


The only errors insisted upon in appellant's brief are that the court erred in refusing to give the affirmative charge and charges, to the effect that the plaintiff could not recover without actual possession having been shown. There was evidence tending to sustain the plaintiff's right to recover, as stated in the several counts of the complaint, to which demurrers were not sustained or confessed, and hence the general charge was properly refused. Two of the counts were in case, under which proof of possession was not essential to a recovery, and hence the other charges requested by the defendant were properly refused.

The other assignments of error are either not insisted upon or waived. There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Huff v. Dyer

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Feb 5, 1918
77 So. 926 (Ala. Crim. App. 1918)
Case details for

Huff v. Dyer

Case Details

Full title:HUFF v. DYER

Court:Court of Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Feb 5, 1918

Citations

77 So. 926 (Ala. Crim. App. 1918)
77 So. 926

Citing Cases

Kinston Supply Co. v. Kelly

83 Ala. 388, 3 So. 769; 79 Ala. 164; 16 Ala. App. 122, 75 So. 714. This was not a case for the affirmative…

Huff v. Dyer

GARDNER, J. Petition of J. W. Huff for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment…