7 So. 384 | Ala. Ct. App. | 1912
This appeal is prosecuted from a judgment denying appellant’s motion for a new trial in a trover suit brought by appellee against appellant in
The mule was taken from the possession of the appellee by the sheriff, acting under a writ of seizure issued in the detinue suit brought by appellant, and turned over to appellant, who took posesssion and disposed of the property by turning it over to his tenant. The tenant’s possession of the property was the appellant’s possession so far as the appellee’s rights were concerned. It makes no difference that the appellant told the tenant, when turning the animal over to him, that it was involved in a. lawsuit and was subject to redelivery to him (appellant) should he lose the case. The appellee was none the less deprived of the -property to which he had the right of immediate possession upon dismissal of the detinue suit because appellant had disposed of the property in his possession to another conditionally, and as between himself and the appellee the appellant was responsible for the failure of the tenant
Under the statement of agreed facts and admissions as set out in the bill of exceptions, the court below is not shown to be in error in refusing appellant’s motion for a new trial, and the case will be affirmed.
Affirmed.