Branch Bank at Mobile v. Scott
This text of 7 Ala. 107 (Branch Bank at Mobile v. Scott) 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.
Opinion
GOLDTHWAITE, J.
— The case of Mr. Scott is not different in principle from that of Mr. Collins, [ante 95.] Mr. Scott was a director for the same year and received an extra allowance of five hundred dollars, for services performed by him as the agent of the Bank, in several of the interior counties during the summer of 1842. These services were proved to be reasonably worth the sum allowed for them, but the appropriation is subject to the same legal objection, that the services were performed while he was a director. In the case of Mr. Collins, we endeavored to show that the board had no' authority to direct compensation even for services out of the ordinary [108]*108course of the business of director; and that when such were rendered no legal claim for compensation arose; but the individual was thrown on the consideration of the Legislature for compensation. In the present case, it may be proper to add, that the defendant would certainly be entitled to retain his per diem allowance, during the period he was engaged in the business of the Bank, if that had not previously been allowed in his general account.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
7 Ala. 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/branch-bank-at-mobile-v-scott-ala-1844.