From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Holcomb

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Aug 19, 1930
129 So. 791 (Ala. Crim. App. 1930)

Opinion

7 Div. 628.

August 19, 1930.

Appeal from De Kalb County Court; E. M. Baker, Judge.

Action in detinue and trover by Samantha C. Holcomb against L. R. Brown. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

It appears that plaintiff and her husband were tenants of one Stanley, for whom defendant was acting as agent in taking the cow. It further appears that Stanley had made advancements to the husband, among other things, fertilizer, or guano. Defendant's theory was that plaintiff and her husband were indebted to Stanley in an amount equal to the value of the cow and that he took the cow and turned over to plaintiff the evidence of such indebtedness. Plaintiff's theory was that Stanley had her largely overcharged and that the cow was wrongfully taken, and over her protest.

Chas. J. Scott, of Ft. Payne, for appellant.

C. A. Wolfes, of Ft. Payne, for appellee.

Counsel discuss the questions raised and treated, but without citation of authorities.


Appellee brought her suit against appellant by complaint consisting of two counts for detinue and conversion of a cow, and at the time of filing her summons and complaint demanded a jury trial.

But two assignments of error are made. The first is based upon the ruling of the court upon the admission of evidence, wherein defendant propounded to plaintiff on cross-examination the following question: "Don't you know your husband sold some of that guano to somebody else?" In this instance the court ruled correctly in sustaining plaintiff's objection to this question; its pertinency is not apparent under the issues involved.

This case, as we see it, involved a question of fact only for the jury to determine, and, under the evidence, we regard the verdict to be warranted by the evidence. To hold that the court erred in overruling defendant's motion for a new trial, as insisted by assignment of error 2, would necessitate the substitution of this court for the jury. To this insistence we cannot accord.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Brown v. Holcomb

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Aug 19, 1930
129 So. 791 (Ala. Crim. App. 1930)
Case details for

Brown v. Holcomb

Case Details

Full title:BROWN v. HOLCOMB

Court:Court of Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Aug 19, 1930

Citations

129 So. 791 (Ala. Crim. App. 1930)
129 So. 791