Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Citation
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Parent Document
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Jurisdiction
- Kentucky (state)
- Effective Date
- 1927-01-18
Other Sections in This Document (24)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
Full Text
825 charsAppellant complains that the question whether it converted to its own use a chain block, the property of appellee, for which recovery was sought by the latter was improperly submitted to the jury upon the theory that there was no evidence of the fact. Appellee testified that he owned the chain block; that it was in the building; that it was not destroyed but that appellant took it and converted it to its own use and had never returned it. No one for appellant denied those facts. It was shown that appellee’s insurance policy covered the chain.block and that he had been paid for the loss he suffered by the fire under the policy.' However, he stated that he was paid nothing for the loss of the chain block and that it was not destroyed but was converted by'appellant. Hence the contention of appellant is without merit.