Gray Eagle Coal Co. v. Lewis

49 So. 859, 161 Ala. 415, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 169
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedMay 24, 1909
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 49 So. 859 (Gray Eagle Coal Co. v. Lewis) 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
Gray Eagle Coal Co. v. Lewis, 49 So. 859, 161 Ala. 415, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 169 (Ala. 1909).

Opinion

SAYRE, J.

That part of count 5 material to bo here noted charged that the “defendant negligently failed to furnish plaintiff with a reasonably safe place to work.” The demurrer was that the count failed to allege or show how or wherein defendant negligently failed to furnish a safe place. This manner of averment, though little more than a mere conclusion, has often been held to satisfactorily meet the requirements of our system of pleading. — Ga. Pac. Ry. v. Davis, 92 Ala. 300, 9 South. 252, 25 Am. St. Rep. 47; Mary Lee Coal Co. v. Chambliss, 97 Ala. 171, 11 South. 897; Armstrong v. [418]*418Street Ry., 123 Ala. 233, 26 South. 349; L. & N. R. R. v. Marbury, 125 Ala. 237, 28 South. 438, 50 L. R. A. 620. Like considerations dispose of the single objection taken by the demurrer to count 4 of the complaint.

In three of the four counts upon which the case was tried plaintiff’s injury is attributed to the negligence of “to wit, one Foster, whose name is now otherwise unknown to plaintiff.” In the evidence there is repeated reference to Mr. Foster. It is insisted that the defendant was entitled to the general affirmative charge as to the three counts, for the reason that there ivas no proof as to the plaintiff’s knowledge in respect to Foster’s name “otherwise.” Conceding that the plaintiff failed to make out his case under the other one of the four counts, it is to be said in reference to the three containing this allegation that, whatever may be the meaning of the allegation, its presence in the complaint was not objected to. It had no essential relation io any matter which in point of law was needful to plaintiff’s claim or defendant’s defense. The failure to prove it as alleged will not be treated as either a material variance or a material failure of proof.

Affirmed.

Dowdell., C. J., and Anderson and McClellan, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Osborne v. May
119 So. 2d 230 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1960)
Hinton & Sons v. Strahan
96 So. 2d 426 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1957)
Kasulka v. Louisville N. R. Co.
105 So. 187 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1925)
Shelby Iron Co. v. Morrow
95 So. 370 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1923)
Talley v. Whitlock
73 So. 976 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1916)
Ragland Brick Co. v. Bell
72 So. 380 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1916)
Wilson v. Gulf States Steel Co.
69 So. 921 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1915)
Coosa Pipe Foundry Co. v. Poindexter
62 So. 104 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1913)
Citizen's L. H. & P. Co. v. Lee
62 So. 199 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1913)
Smith v. Watkins
55 So. 611 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1911)
City of Lake Charles v. Marcantel
51 So. 106 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 So. 859, 161 Ala. 415, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-eagle-coal-co-v-lewis-ala-1909.