Morris v. Goldman

Supreme Court of Alabama

Morris v. Goldman

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

Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided November 27, 1919·No. 6 Div. 989.·Published

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.

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

Pincite

86 So. 213 (Morris v. Goldman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.