Broadus v. Lindsey

84 So. 776, 17 Ala. App. 342, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 276
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 28, 1919
Docket1 Div. 315.
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 84 So. 776 (Broadus v. Lindsey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Broadus v. Lindsey, 84 So. 776, 17 Ala. App. 342, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 276 (Ala. Ct. App. 1919).

Opinion

BROWN, P. J.

[1, 2] The principles of law governing the case as presented by count A are clearly stated in Harton v. Belcher, 195 Ala. 186, 70 South. 141, and Berry v. Wooddy, 16 Ala. App. 348, 77 South. 942. Count A is not subject to the objection that it does not state a substantial cause of action, and it was not subject to the stated ground of demurrer.

[3, 4] The statute of limitations of 1 year was not pleaded, and the limitations of 3, 6, and 10 years are not appropriate or applicable to an action for deceit. Code 1907, § 4840, subd. 5.

[5, 6] The defendants request “to find the facts in this cause at the trial thereof” is not a request for “a special finding of facts,” and the rendition of judgment without such special finding of facts did not contravene any right given to the appellant by Code 1907, § 5360, which provides that “the finding of the court may be general, »* * * unless the parties, or either of them, in writing, request a special finding of the facts.”

[7] The subject-matter of count A arises out of the same subject-matter as the other counts, and the allowance of the amendment of the complaint by adding count A was permissible. Gambill v. Fox Typewriter Co., 190 Ala. 36, 66 South. 655.

[8 ] There was evidence which, if believed, justified the findings of the trial court. Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403, 72 South. 52; Pinkard v. Cassels, 195 Ala. 353, 70 South. 153.

We find no reversible error in the record, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Kessler v. Peck
98 So. 2d 606 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1957)
Wilson v. Dudley
76 So. 2d 509 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1954)
Brush v. Rountree
32 So. 2d 244 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1947)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
84 So. 776, 17 Ala. App. 342, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broadus-v-lindsey-alactapp-1919.