E. A. Bradford Undertaking Co. v. King

Supreme Court of Alabama

E. A. Bradford Undertaking Co. v. King

89 So. 705, 206 Ala. 158, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 134

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 2, 1921

Docket6 Div. 266.

StatusPublished

This text of 89 So. 705 (E. A. Bradford Undertaking Co. v. King) 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

E. A. Bradford Undertaking Co. v. King, 89 So. 705, 206 Ala. 158, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 134 (Ala. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

McCLELLAN, J.

[1,2] Appeal from a decree overruling demurrer taking the sole objection that there is no equity in the bill. The bill possessed equity in the aspect that it seeks the transfer and issuance to complainant of stock in the corporation to which the complainant, on the averments of the bill, is shown to be entitled. McDuffie v. Lynchburg Shoe Co., 178 Ala. 268, 59 South. 567; Wetumpka Bridge Co. v. Kidd, 124 Ala. 242, 27 South. 431. It may be doubtful whether the objection that the bill does not contain equity is sufficient to raise any question of laches. See Solomon v. Solomon, 81 Ala. 505, 1 South. 82. In any event, no unreasonable delay appears from the averments of this bill to defeat the complainant’s right to relief, the bill being filed in three years and one month after complainant purchased the stock interest of defendant in execution.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ„ concur.

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

McCLELLAN, J.

[1,2] Appeal from a decree overruling demurrer taking the sole objection that there is no equity in the bill. The bill possessed equity in the aspect that it seeks the transfer and issuance to complainant of stock in the corporation to which the complainant, on the averments of the bill, is shown to be entitled. McDuffie v. Lynchburg Shoe Co., 178 Ala. 268, 59 South. 567; Wetumpka Bridge Co. v. Kidd, 124 Ala. 242, 27 South. 431. It may be doubtful whether the objection that the bill does not contain equity is sufficient to raise any question of laches. See Solomon v. Solomon, 81 Ala. 505, 1 South. 82. In any event, no unreasonable delay appears from the averments of this bill to defeat the complainant’s right to relief, the bill being filed in three years and one month after complainant purchased the stock interest of defendant in execution.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 So. 705, 206 Ala. 158, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/e-a-bradford-undertaking-co-v-king-ala-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack