Kessler v. Simmons

Supreme Court of Alabama

Kessler v. Simmons

519 So. 2d 502, 1988 Ala. LEXIS 5, 1988 WL 8637

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 8, 1988

Docket86-1332

StatusPublished

This text of 519 So. 2d 502 (Kessler v. Simmons) 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

Kessler v. Simmons, 519 So. 2d 502, 1988 Ala. LEXIS 5, 1988 WL 8637 (Ala. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Because we find no evidence before the trial court from which the trier of the fact could reasonably conclude either that defendants David Simmons and Durham W. Ellis, as corporate officers and stockholders, contractually stipulated to act as co-sureties of the corporation or that the corporation was operated as a mere sham, we affirm the summary judgment on their behalf, on the authority of Washburn v. Rabun, 487 So.2d 1361 (Ala.1986), and Little v. People's Bank of Mobile, 209 Ala. 620, 96 So. 763 (1923).

We note that the summary judgment in favor of these two defendants was made final pursuant to Rule 64(b), A.R.Civ.P., and that the plaintiff’s claim against Simmons and Ellis, Inc., as well as the corporate defendant's counterclaim against Kes-sler, is still pending in the trial court.

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C.J., and JONES, SHORES, ADAMS and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Because we find no evidence before the trial court from which the trier of the fact could reasonably conclude either that defendants David Simmons and Durham W. Ellis, as corporate officers and stockholders, contractually stipulated to act as co-sureties of the corporation or that the corporation was operated as a mere sham, we affirm the summary judgment on their behalf, on the authority of Washburn v. Rabun, 487 So.2d 1361 (Ala.1986), and Little v. People's Bank of Mobile, 209 Ala. 620, 96 So. 763 (1923).

We note that the summary judgment in favor of these two defendants was made final pursuant to Rule 64(b), A.R.Civ.P., and that the plaintiff’s claim against Simmons and Ellis, Inc., as well as the corporate defendant's counterclaim against Kes-sler, is still pending in the trial court.

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C.J., and JONES, SHORES, ADAMS and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

519 So. 2d 502, 1988 Ala. LEXIS 5, 1988 WL 8637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kessler-v-simmons-ala-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack