Drinkard v. Premier Refining Co.

90 So. 54, 18 Ala. App. 109, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 91
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 5, 1921
Docket8 Div. 724.
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

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

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.

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

Related

Frazier v. Dismuke
118 So. 227 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1928)
Garnett v. Scott
92 So. 408 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 So. 54, 18 Ala. App. 109, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drinkard-v-premier-refining-co-alactapp-1921.