Kemp v. Huffstutler

Supreme Court of Alabama

Kemp v. Huffstutler

50 So. 2d 233, 255 Ala. 105, 1951 Ala. LEXIS 263

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedFebruary 1, 1951

Docket6 Div. 92

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 50 So. 2d 233 (Kemp v. Huffstutler) 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

Kemp v. Huffstutler, 50 So. 2d 233, 255 Ala. 105, 1951 Ala. LEXIS 263 (Ala. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

FOSTER, Justice.

This case comes here on appeal from a decree of the circuit court, in equity, overruling demurrers to a bill of complaint.

Appellants’ counsel make the contention in brief that the bill is without equity and that it is nothing more than a fishing expedition on the part of appellee, who is the complainant, to get information when there is no basis for the same, and that the bill is vague, indefinite and uncertain and, therefore, subject to demurrer.

We are reminded by appellee that the bill contains the same averments and is in the language of the bill referred to in the case of Howard v. Stewart, 252 Ala. 581, 42 So.2d 252. That case came here, as this, by appeal from a decree overruling the demurrer to the bill. It was held that the demurrer was properly overruled and the decree was affirmed. There is no difference between the two cases so far as we are able to discover. Therefore, upon the authority of that case as well as the statute to which it refers, section 898, Title 7, Code, there was no error in the decree in the instant case overruling the demurrer. It is affirmed.

Affirmed.

LIVINGSTON, LAWSON and STAKE-LY, JJ., concur.

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

FOSTER, Justice.

This case comes here on appeal from a decree of the circuit court, in equity, overruling demurrers to a bill of complaint.

Appellants’ counsel make the contention in brief that the bill is without equity and that it is nothing more than a fishing expedition on the part of appellee, who is the complainant, to get information when there is no basis for the same, and that the bill is vague, indefinite and uncertain and, therefore, subject to demurrer.

We are reminded by appellee that the bill contains the same averments and is in the language of the bill referred to in the case of Howard v. Stewart, 252 Ala. 581, 42 So.2d 252. That case came here, as this, by appeal from a decree overruling the demurrer to the bill. It was held that the demurrer was properly overruled and the decree was affirmed. There is no difference between the two cases so far as we are able to discover. Therefore, upon the authority of that case as well as the statute to which it refers, section 898, Title 7, Code, there was no error in the decree in the instant case overruling the demurrer. It is affirmed.

Affirmed.

LIVINGSTON, LAWSON and STAKE-LY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 So. 2d 233, 255 Ala. 105, 1951 Ala. LEXIS 263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kemp-v-huffstutler-ala-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack