Eagle Iron Co. v. Malone
42 So. 734, 149 Ala. 367, 1906 Ala. LEXIS 7
Opinion
After the complaint was amended by striking out the name of Stewart as a party defendant, the remaining defendant should have been allowed to file the plea in abatement proposed by it. — Eagle Iron Co. v. Baugh, 147 Ala. 613, 41 South. 663. There can, of course, be no trial of the cause on its merits until this plea, when filed, is disposed of. We will, therefore, not consider any other assignment of error.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Eagle Iron Co. v. Malone, 42 So. 734, 149 Ala. 367, 1906 Ala. LEXIS 7 (Ala. 1906).
42 So. 734 (Eagle Iron Co. v. Malone) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
W. S. Fowler Rental Equipment Company v. Skipper
165 So. 2d 375 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1963)
Ex Parte Dunlap
96 So. 441 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1923)
Faulk & Co. v. Hobbie Grocery Co.
59 So. 450 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1912)
St.Louis & S. F. R. R. v. Sutton
55 So. 989 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1910)