Drinkard v. Premier Refining Co.

Alabama Court of Appeals

Drinkard v. Premier Refining Co.

90 So. 54, 18 Ala. App. 109, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 91

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided April 5, 1921·No. 8 Div. 724.·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

The complaint-was in two counts, claiming for goods sold and delivered and on open count. Neither count was an instrument in writing or verified • account ascertaining the plaintiff’s demands. Code 3970 and 3971, §§ 5356, 5325. And the judgment being by default, without the intervention of a jury, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded. Rhea v. Holston Salt & P. Co., 59 Ala. 182; Parsons Lbr. Co. v. West Co. et al., 163 Ala. 594, 50 South. 1034.

There are other questions in the record, but we think a decision of them is unnecessary.

Reversed and remanded.

Footnotes

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

SAMFORD, J.

The complaint-was in two counts, claiming for goods sold and delivered and on open count. Neither count was an instrument in writing or verified • account ascertaining the plaintiff’s demands. Code 3970 and 3971, §§ 5356, 5325. And the judgment being by default, without the intervention of a jury, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded. Rhea v. Holston Salt & P. Co., 59 Ala. 182; Parsons Lbr. Co. v. West Co. et al., 163 Ala. 594, 50 South. 1034.

There are other questions in the record, but we think a decision of them is unnecessary.

Reversed and remanded.

Footnotes

Drinkard v. Premier Refining Co., 90 So. 54, 18 Ala. App. 109, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 91 (Ala. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

90 So. 54 (Drinkard v. Premier Refining Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Footnotes

Related