Morris v. Goldman

Supreme Court of Alabama

Morris v. Goldman

86 So. 213, 204 Ala. 1, 1919 Ala. LEXIS 1

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedNovember 27, 1919

Docket6 Div. 989.

StatusPublished

This text of 86 So. 213 (Morris v. Goldman) 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

Morris v. Goldman, 86 So. 213, 204 Ala. 1, 1919 Ala. LEXIS 1 (Ala. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

While we think that this writ should be denied, and that the result reached by the Court of Appeals is correct, we prefer treating count AA as averring that the defendant was a bailee for hire. In other words, we think that the use of the word “her,” instead of “hire,” should be treated as a clerical misprision, in view of the fact that the defendant’s demurrer proceeded upon this theory, especially grounds 2 and 8.

The writ is denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLELLAN, SOMERVILLE, and THOMAS, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

While we think that this writ should be denied, and that the result reached by the Court of Appeals is correct, we prefer treating count AA as averring that the defendant was a bailee for hire. In other words, we think that the use of the word “her,” instead of “hire,” should be treated as a clerical misprision, in view of the fact that the defendant’s demurrer proceeded upon this theory, especially grounds 2 and 8.

The writ is denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLELLAN, SOMERVILLE, and THOMAS, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 So. 213, 204 Ala. 1, 1919 Ala. LEXIS 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-goldman-ala-1919.