Lunday v. Jones

Supreme Court of Alabama

Lunday v. Jones

85 So. 411, 204 Ala. 326, 1920 Ala. LEXIS 156

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedFebruary 14, 1920

Docket4 Div. 830.

StatusPublished

Cited by25 cases

This text of 85 So. 411 (Lunday v. Jones) 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

Lunday v. Jones, 85 So. 411, 204 Ala. 326, 1920 Ala. LEXIS 156 (Ala. 1920).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The majority of the court, consisting of ANDERSON, C. J., McCLELLAN, SAYRE, THOMAS, and BROWN, JJ., are of the opinion that the cause should be reversed for the reason there was no note of *327 testimony as required by Chancery Practice Rule 75 (Code 1907, p. 1551), under the authority of the recent ca&e of Potts v. Court of Com’rs, 203 Ala. 300, 82 South. 550, and the several authorities therein cited.

It therefore results that the decree is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

The majority of the court, consisting of ANDERSON, C. J., McCLELLAN, SAYRE, THOMAS, and BROWN, JJ., are of the opinion that the cause should be reversed for the reason there was no note of *327 testimony as required by Chancery Practice Rule 75 (Code 1907, p. 1551), under the authority of the recent ca&e of Potts v. Court of Com’rs, 203 Ala. 300, 82 South. 550, and the several authorities therein cited.

It therefore results that the decree is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 So. 411, 204 Ala. 326, 1920 Ala. LEXIS 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lunday-v-jones-ala-1920.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack