Gilchrist v. Howell Graves

Supreme Court of Alabama

Gilchrist v. Howell Graves

130 So. 916, 222 Ala. 705

Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided October 23, 1930·No. 8 Div. 197.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ANDERSON, C. J.

If not for other reasons; the decree of the circuit court must be affirmed upon the authority of Nicolopoolos v. Donovan, 221 Ala. 16, 127 So. 543. It is manifest that the complainant has a plain and adequate remedy at law active or defensive and the nonexistence of which is essential to the equity of the bill.

The decree of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

SAYRE, THOMAS, and BROWN, JJ., con- • cur.

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

ANDERSON, C. J.

If not for other reasons; the decree of the circuit court must be affirmed upon the authority of Nicolopoolos v. Donovan, 221 Ala. 16, 127 So. 543. It is manifest that the complainant has a plain and adequate remedy at law active or defensive and the nonexistence of which is essential to the equity of the bill.

The decree of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

SAYRE, THOMAS, and BROWN, JJ., con- • cur.

Gilchrist v. Howell Graves, 130 So. 916, 222 Ala. 705 (Ala. 1930).

Pincite

130 So. 916 (Gilchrist v. Howell Graves) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related