Barrington v. Barrington

77 So. 711, 201 Ala. 185, 1918 Ala. LEXIS 232
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided January 17, 1918·No. 3 Div. 334.·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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

77 So. 711 (Barrington v. Barrington) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Norville v. Seeberg
87 So. 164 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1920)
Birmingham Trust & Savings Co. v. Cannon
85 So. 768 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1920)