Metcalf v. First State Bank

Supreme Court of Alabama

Metcalf v. First State Bank

61 So. 900, 181 Ala. 323, 1913 Ala. LEXIS 156

DecidedApril 24, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 61 So. 900 (Metcalf v. First State Bank) 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

Metcalf v. First State Bank, 61 So. 900, 181 Ala. 323, 1913 Ala. LEXIS 156 (Ala. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

ANDERSON, J.

The register saw and heard the witnesses upon the reference for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of compensation that should be awarded the receiver, Gray, and found that said Gray was entitled to $1,000. The finding of the register was like unto the verdict of a jury, and should not be disturbed by the chancellor, or this court, unless plainly and palpably excessive. — McKenzie v. Matthews, 153 Ala. 437, 44 South. 958; Denman v. Payne, 152 Ala. 342, 44 South. 635. The chancellor reduced the award of the-register to $750, but which action we cannot review, as there was no cross-appeal.

It is sufficient to say, however, that the amount allowed by the chancellor was less than the award of the register, and we are not prepared to say' that the finding of the register -svas palpably erroneous. The decree of the chancery court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Dowdell, C. J., not sitting.

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

ANDERSON, J.

The register saw and heard the witnesses upon the reference for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of compensation that should be awarded the receiver, Gray, and found that said Gray was entitled to $1,000. The finding of the register was like unto the verdict of a jury, and should not be disturbed by the chancellor, or this court, unless plainly and palpably excessive. — McKenzie v. Matthews, 153 Ala. 437, 44 South. 958; Denman v. Payne, 152 Ala. 342, 44 South. 635. The chancellor reduced the award of the-register to $750, but which action we cannot review, as there was no cross-appeal.

It is sufficient to say, however, that the amount allowed by the chancellor was less than the award of the register, and we are not prepared to say' that the finding of the register -svas palpably erroneous. The decree of the chancery court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Dowdell, C. J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 So. 900, 181 Ala. 323, 1913 Ala. LEXIS 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metcalf-v-first-state-bank-ala-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack