Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 6-6-256 (2026)
Assessment of Value and Damages and Judgment - Trial of Action.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Upon the trial the jury must, if it finds for the plaintiff, assess the value of each article separately, if practicable, and also assess damages for its detention. If it finds for the defendant, it must, in like manner, assess the value and, if in the possession of the plaintiff, assess damages for its detention. Judgment against either party must be for the property sued for, or its alternate value, with damages for its detention to the time of trial.
(Code 1852, §2194; Code 1867, §2595; Code 1876, §2944; Code 1886, §2719; Code 1896, §1476; Code 1907, §3781; Code 1923, §7392; Code 1940, T. 7, §921.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1981–2015 · leading case: In Re Manderson, 121 B.R. 617 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1990).
In Re Manderson, 121 B.R. 617 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1990). “Leader Federal, in its brief, apparently alleges that what it defines as a failure by Manderson to comply with Ala. Code § 6-6-256 and with 11 U.S.C. § 521 in the bankruptcy code constitute wrongful detention of the mobile home.”
Andrews v. Loftin, 540 So. 2d 65 (Ala. 1988). “Because this was an action in detinue, § 6-6-256, Code of Alabama (1975), provided the remedy.”
Jones v. Cent. Bank of the South, 466 So. 2d 932 (Ala. 1985). “Not only did the Bank fail to obtain a judgment on the detinue count, but it also failed to prove the alternative value of such property as required by Code 1975, § 6-6-256. Heathcock v. Hadley, 398 So.2d 715 (Ala.”
Heathcock v. Hadley, 398 So. 2d 715 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981). “The judgment is adequate to meet the requirements of a detinue judgment under § 6-6-256 of the Code of Alabama of 1975.”
Jones v. Preuit & Mauldin, 808 F.2d 1435 (11th Cir. 1987). “1984); Ala. Code § 6-6-256 (1975). P & M sought payment on repair bills; therefore, its actions were in debt, not detinue.”
Barnett v. Wooldridge, 494 So. 2d 459 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986). “Under section 6-6-256, Code 1975, a judgment in detinue cases must be for the property sued for, or its alternate value, with damages for its detention regardless of whether a claim for such damages was included in the complaint, provided that the trial court is reasonably…”
Cent. Bank of the South v. Patterson, 607 So. 2d 204 (Ala. 1992). “Section 6-6-256, Ala.Code 1975, provides that the judgment must be for the property sued for, or its alternative value, with damages for its detention to the time of trial.”
Evans v. First Nat'l Bank of Jasper, 9 So. 3d 488 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “See § 6-6-256, Ala.Code 1975. The judgment is final, however, because to award to the Bank both money damages and possession of the vehicle or the vehicle’s alternate value would allow the Bank a double recovery, which is impermissible.”
Wingard v. Little, 883 So. 2d 677 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003). “See § 6-6-256, Ala.Code 1975 (providing that a judgment in a detinue action “must be for the property sued for, or its alternate value, with damages for its detention” 1 ).”
Jones v. Norman Fountain Contractor, Inc., 435 So. 2d 729 (Ala. 1983). “2d 546, 549 (1974); Code 1975, § 6-6-256. The appellant asserts that the amount awarded by the jury as damages for the detention of the equipment was not supported by the evidence.”
Safeway Ins. Co. of Alabama v. Nunnelley, 196 So. 3d 1227 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015). “According to our supreme court, the detinue statute, Ala.Code 1975, § 6-6-256, required that the district court award either the property or damages equal to the value of the property to a successful plaintiff; thus, once the evidence at trial in Ex parte Smith established that…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.