Deason v. Alpine Coal Co.

Alabama Court of Appeals

Deason v. Alpine Coal Co.

114 So. 423, 22 Ala. App. 254, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 155

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 1, 1927

Docket6 Div. 241.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 114 So. 423 (Deason v. Alpine Coal Co.) 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

Deason v. Alpine Coal Co., 114 So. 423, 22 Ala. App. 254, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 155 (Ala. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

BRÍCKEN, P. J.

But one question is involved upon this appeal, the several assignments of error are of the same import.

The record discloses that plaintiff (appellant) filed a complaint against “Alpine Coal Company, a corporation,” on January 16, 1926. On October 19, 1926, the Alpine Coal Company filed a sworn plea of nul tiel corporation. The cause was called for trial on January 6, 1927, whereupon the plaintiff undertook and offered to amend his complaint, the effect of said proposed amendment was to strike from the complaint the “Alpine Coal Company, a corporatioin,” and to add in lieu thereof “James L. Gallacher, doing business as Alpine Coal Company, defendant.” The court sustained defendant’s objection to the filing of said amendment and refused to permit same, whereupon the plaintiff took a' nonsuit with bill of exceptions. Judgment was rendered accordingly, and from this adverse ruling this appeal was taken.

The statute of amendment (section 9513 of the Code), though extremely liberal in its provisions, does not contemplate an amendment authorizing an entire change of parties. Rarden Mercantile Co. v. Whiteside. 145 Ala. 617, 39 So. 576. We are of thé opinion that the amendment here offered was of that character and if allowed would have' wrought an entire change of party defendant. The trial court took this view and correctly so. The court’s rulings in this connection were- without error. This being the only point of decision upon the appeal, the cause is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BRÍCKEN, P. J.

But one question is involved upon this appeal, the several assignments of error are of the same import.

The record discloses that plaintiff (appellant) filed a complaint against “Alpine Coal Company, a corporation,” on January 16, 1926. On October 19, 1926, the Alpine Coal Company filed a sworn plea of nul tiel corporation. The cause was called for trial on January 6, 1927, whereupon the plaintiff undertook and offered to amend his complaint, the effect of said proposed amendment was to strike from the complaint the “Alpine Coal Company, a corporatioin,” and to add in lieu thereof “James L. Gallacher, doing business as Alpine Coal Company, defendant.” The court sustained defendant’s objection to the filing of said amendment and refused to permit same, whereupon the plaintiff took a' nonsuit with bill of exceptions. Judgment was rendered accordingly, and from this adverse ruling this appeal was taken.

The statute of amendment (section 9513 of the Code), though extremely liberal in its provisions, does not contemplate an amendment authorizing an entire change of parties. Rarden Mercantile Co. v. Whiteside. 145 Ala. 617, 39 So. 576. We are of thé opinion that the amendment here offered was of that character and if allowed would have' wrought an entire change of party defendant. The trial court took this view and correctly so. The court’s rulings in this connection were- without error. This being the only point of decision upon the appeal, the cause is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 So. 423, 22 Ala. App. 254, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deason-v-alpine-coal-co-alactapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack