159 So. 694 | Ala. | 1935
The appellee warehouse, when sued in detinue for the cotton, having failed, under the statute, to suggest Ida Priebe, to whom the cotton receipts were issued as owner or claimant of the cotton, must assume the burden here of averring and proving that the plaintiff, who recovered in the detinue action, had a title superior to Ida Priebe's. Farmers' Union Warehouse Co. v. Barnett Bros.,
We think, however, that the bill of complaint is nothing more than a substitute for an action of detinue, and that the facts set out, as well as the relief sought, disclose a plain and adequate remedy at law. In other words, it charges that Ida and Amelia Priebe still have possession of the cotton receipts and simply seeks a transfer of same to this complainant. It is well settled that a court of equity has no jurisdiction to take property from the possession of one party and put it in the possession of another. Yellow Pine Export Co. v. Sutherland-Innis Co.,
If the respondents are in possession of the receipts as averred, the complainant should recover same in an action of detinue, and, if *75 not in possession, we do not see how a court of equity can require a surrender of same to the complainant or prevent a transfer or disposition of same.
The trial court erred in not sustaining the respondents' demurrer to the bill, and the decree is reversed, and one is here rendered sustaining same, and the cause is remanded.
Reversed, rendered, and remanded.
THOMAS, BROWN, and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.
