Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. Gray

Supreme Court of Alabama

Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. Gray

898 So. 2d 760, 2004 Ala. LEXIS 365, 2004 WL 2320272

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedOctober 15, 2004

Docket1031797 and 1031831

StatusPublished

This text of 898 So. 2d 760 (Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. Gray) 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

Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. Gray, 898 So. 2d 760, 2004 Ala. LEXIS 365, 2004 WL 2320272 (Ala. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

HOUSTON, Justice.

The petitions for the writ of certiorari are denied.

In denying these petitions for the writ of certiorari, this Court does not wish to be understood as approving all the language, reasons, or statements of law in the Court of Civil Appeals’ opinion. Horsley v. Horsley, 291 Ala. 782, 280 So.2d 155 (1973). See United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 337 U.S. 426, 430, 69 S.Ct. 1410, 93 L.Ed. 1451 (1949) (“There is much argument with citation of many cases to establish the long-recognized general principle that no person may sue himself. Properly understood the principle is sound, for courts only adjudicate justicia-ble controversies. They do not engage in the academic pastime of rendering judgments in favor of persons against themselves.”). See also Hagood v. Goff, 208 Ala. 642, 643, 95 So. 21, 21 (1923) (“The practice of a party appearing on both sides of a cause cannot be approved. Any decree a party recovers against himself, though he appears in different capacities, is void. The decree, as against such party, is a nullity. Martin v. Atkinson, 108 Ala. 314, 18 South. 888, and authorities there cited.”).

WRITS DENIED.

NABERS, C.J., and LYONS, JOHNSTONE, and WOODALL, JJ., concur.

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

HOUSTON, Justice.

The petitions for the writ of certiorari are denied.

In denying these petitions for the writ of certiorari, this Court does not wish to be understood as approving all the language, reasons, or statements of law in the Court of Civil Appeals’ opinion. Horsley v. Horsley, 291 Ala. 782, 280 So.2d 155 (1973). See United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 337 U.S. 426, 430, 69 S.Ct. 1410, 93 L.Ed. 1451 (1949) (“There is much argument with citation of many cases to establish the long-recognized general principle that no person may sue himself. Properly understood the principle is sound, for courts only adjudicate justicia-ble controversies. They do not engage in the academic pastime of rendering judgments in favor of persons against themselves.”). See also Hagood v. Goff, 208 Ala. 642, 643, 95 So. 21, 21 (1923) (“The practice of a party appearing on both sides of a cause cannot be approved. Any decree a party recovers against himself, though he appears in different capacities, is void. The decree, as against such party, is a nullity. Martin v. Atkinson, 108 Ala. 314, 18 South. 888, and authorities there cited.”).

WRITS DENIED.

NABERS, C.J., and LYONS, JOHNSTONE, and WOODALL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

898 So. 2d 760, 2004 Ala. LEXIS 365, 2004 WL 2320272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/firemans-fund-insurance-co-v-gray-ala-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack