Maxwell & Delehomme v. Moore

50 So. 882, 163 Ala. 490, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 552
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJune 17, 1909
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 50 So. 882 (Maxwell & Delehomme v. Moore) 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
Maxwell & Delehomme v. Moore, 50 So. 882, 163 Ala. 490, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 552 (Ala. 1909).

Opinions

MoCLELLAN, j.

The contract here involved was for the furnishing of the material and the work and labor to apply it in painting a house for defendant (appellee). The contract was not fully performed by plaintiffs — on the contrary, was abandoned by them when approximately 15 per cent, of it was unperformed. The common counts, as here, cannot, under such circumstances, be employed to recover upon a quantum valebat or quantum meruit for the outlay made by plaintiffs.—Carbon Hill Co. v. Cunningham, 153 Ala. 573; 44 South. 1016; Martin v. Massie, 127 Ala. 504, 29 South. 31, and authorities therein cited.

The judgment is affirmed.

Dowdell,, C. J., and Anderson and Sayre, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Blythe v. Embry
61 So. 2d 142 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1952)
Howell v. Dodd
157 So. 211 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1934)
Zimmerman v. Western Builders & Salvage Co.
297 P. 449 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1931)
Varner v. Hardy
96 So. 860 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1923)
McCormick v. Badham
85 So. 101 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1919)
Vere v. Rosafa
11 P.R. Fed. 325 (D. Puerto Rico, 1919)
Hartsell v. Turner
71 So. 658 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1916)
Graydon v. Buford
56 So. 77 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 So. 882, 163 Ala. 490, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maxwell-delehomme-v-moore-ala-1909.