Barrington v. Barrington

Supreme Court of Alabama

Barrington v. Barrington

77 So. 711, 201 Ala. 185, 1918 Ala. LEXIS 232

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 17, 1918

Docket3 Div. 334.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 77 So. 711 (Barrington v. Barrington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barrington v. Barrington, 77 So. 711, 201 Ala. 185, 1918 Ala. LEXIS 232 (Ala. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

ANDERSON, C. J.

[1,2] The complainant had the right to amend her bill at anytime before final decree. Section 3126 of the Code of 1907. The amendment was not inconsistent with or repugnant to the original bill as it sought the identical relief as the original bill, but if it sought inconsistent relief in the alternative, it would not be demurrable, if it arose out of the same transaction or subject-matter or related to the same property between the same parties. Section 3095 of the Code of 1907. Durr v. Hanover Bank, 170 Ala. 260, 53 South. 1012. The cases cited by appellant’s counsel are in no sense contrary to the present holding, or were decided previous to our present statute authorizing inconsistent relief.

The decree of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

McClellan, Gardner, and thomas, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ANDERSON, C. J.

[1,2] The complainant had the right to amend her bill at anytime before final decree. Section 3126 of the Code of 1907. The amendment was not inconsistent with or repugnant to the original bill as it sought the identical relief as the original bill, but if it sought inconsistent relief in the alternative, it would not be demurrable, if it arose out of the same transaction or subject-matter or related to the same property between the same parties. Section 3095 of the Code of 1907. Durr v. Hanover Bank, 170 Ala. 260, 53 South. 1012. The cases cited by appellant’s counsel are in no sense contrary to the present holding, or were decided previous to our present statute authorizing inconsistent relief.

The decree of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

McClellan, Gardner, and thomas, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 So. 711, 201 Ala. 185, 1918 Ala. LEXIS 232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrington-v-barrington-ala-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack