King v. Central Hardware Co.
85 So. 822, 204 Ala. 336, 1920 Ala. LEXIS 162
Opinion
This court is of the opinion that the trial court committed error in admitting the record of the judgment recovered by plaintiff against defendant. Taliaferro v. Lane, 23 Ala. 369; Abraham v. Nicrosi, 87 Ala. 173, 6 South. 293. This question was not raised or adjudicated in this case on the former appeal. 200 Ala. 209, 75 South. 967.
Reversed and remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings in conformity herewith.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
King v. Central Hardware Co., 85 So. 822, 204 Ala. 336, 1920 Ala. LEXIS 162 (Ala. 1920).
85 So. 822 (King v. Central Hardware Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
First Nat. Bank of Mobile v. Lartigue
173 So. 21 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1937)
Baker Tow Boat Co. v. Langner
117 So. 915 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1928)
King v. Central Hardware Co.
85 So. 821 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1919)