44 So. 649 | Ala. | 1907
In doing work in defendant’s mine, the plaintiff used his own tools — the ones sued for.
It was shown that the rules of the defendant’s prevented any one, except employes of defendants’ from catering che mine, and Palmer testified that Linton never came to him after he had gone to see Payne.
There is no dispute as to the ownership of the tools and their possession by the plaintiff before they were left-in the mine.
It seems to be conceded by defendant's counsel thai the tools were in possession of defendant at the time plaintiff made the demand to be allowed to go into the mine to get them. A Ye will, therefore, pretermit a discussion of the question of possession, and the effect of the demand upon plaintiff’s right to bring and maintain the action.
The defendant had a rule, which was reasonable, under all the conditions, that no one should enter the mine, except an employe. A strike was on, and the evident purpose of the rule, was to keep out men belonging to the striking union, who might canse trouble with the nonunion employes in the mine.
It follows that charge 2, requested by defendant, should have been given.
Reversed and remanded.