Brewer v. Kaul Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Brewer v. Kaul Lumber Co.

69 So. 84, 193 Ala. 269, 1915 Ala. LEXIS 142

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMay 13, 1915

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 69 So. 84 (Brewer v. Kaul Lumber Co.) 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

Brewer v. Kaul Lumber Co., 69 So. 84, 193 Ala. 269, 1915 Ala. LEXIS 142 (Ala. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

SAYRE, J.—

(1,2) After the decree pro confesso-, evidence was necessary to prove the recoverable damages. The proof of damages, in connection with the averments of the bill, disclosed the fact that the defendant Phillips alone, and before the defendants appellants, Brewer and Moore, were “associated” with him, had caused the injury for which complainant sought damages. In these circumstances defendants Brewer and Moore should not have been charged with the dam[271]*271ages covered, by the decree for money. In other respects the decree was correct and is not complained of. The decree will be corrected at the cost of the appellee, so' as to relieve Brewer and Moore of the decree for damages. In other respects the decree will be affirmed.

Corrected and affirmed.

Anderson, C. J., and McClellan and Gardner, JJ., concur.

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

SAYRE, J.—

(1,2) After the decree pro confesso-, evidence was necessary to prove the recoverable damages. The proof of damages, in connection with the averments of the bill, disclosed the fact that the defendant Phillips alone, and before the defendants appellants, Brewer and Moore, were “associated” with him, had caused the injury for which complainant sought damages. In these circumstances defendants Brewer and Moore should not have been charged with the dam[271]*271ages covered, by the decree for money. In other respects the decree was correct and is not complained of. The decree will be corrected at the cost of the appellee, so' as to relieve Brewer and Moore of the decree for damages. In other respects the decree will be affirmed.

Corrected and affirmed.

Anderson, C. J., and McClellan and Gardner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 So. 84, 193 Ala. 269, 1915 Ala. LEXIS 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brewer-v-kaul-lumber-co-ala-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack