Matthews v. Robinson

Supreme Court of Alabama

Matthews v. Robinson

33 Ala. 320

DecidedJune 15, 1858

StatusPublished

This text of 33 Ala. 320 (Matthews v. Robinson) 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

Matthews v. Robinson, 33 Ala. 320 (Ala. 1858).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, O. J.—

The chancellor supposed that the complainant showed in his bill that he had “ as plain, adequate, and complete remedy ” at law as in chancery; and upon that supposition, the chancellor dismissed the bill for want of equity; or, in other words, for matter apparent on the face of the bill.

The bill makes a clear case for the complainant. This is so fully established by the argument of the counsel for the complainant filed in this court, as to render it unnecessary for us to do more than refer to that argument.

The decree of the chanceller is reversed, and the cause remanded. The appellee must pay the costs of the appeal.

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

RICE, O. J.—

The chancellor supposed that the complainant showed in his bill that he had “ as plain, adequate, and complete remedy ” at law as in chancery; and upon that supposition, the chancellor dismissed the bill for want of equity; or, in other words, for matter apparent on the face of the bill.

The bill makes a clear case for the complainant. This is so fully established by the argument of the counsel for the complainant filed in this court, as to render it unnecessary for us to do more than refer to that argument.

The decree of the chanceller is reversed, and the cause remanded. The appellee must pay the costs of the appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 Ala. 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-robinson-ala-1858.