Leek v. Meeks

74 So. 31, 199 Ala. 89, 1916 Ala. LEXIS 280
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided June 30, 1916·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

THOMAS, J.

— We have carefully considered the several assignments of error, and, without indulging any presumption in favor of the correctness of the' decree of the chancellor, are of the opinion that the correct conclusion was reached. The opinion of the chancellor, made a part of his final decree in the cause, has carefully stated the principles involved; and no good end would be subserved by a further- discussion of the same. The [97] reporter is directed to set out this well-considered opinion of the chancellor, as authority for the conclusion reached in this court. There being no error in the record, the decree is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Anderson, C. J., and Mayfield and Somerville, JJ., concur.

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

Leek v. Meeks, 74 So. 31, 199 Ala. 89, 1916 Ala. LEXIS 280 (Ala. 1916).

74 So. 31 (Leek v. Meeks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Virgin v. Garrett
169 So. 711 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1936)
Lowery v. May
104 So. 5 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1925)
Berow v. Brown
94 So. 772 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1922)
Greenwood v. Bennett
95 So. 159 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1922)
Harrison v. Sollie
89 So. 562 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1921)
Patterson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
81 So. 85 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1919)
City of Birmingham v. Graham
79 So. 574 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1918)