O'Kief v. Memphis & Charleston R. R.
99 Ala. 524
Opinion
The majority of the court holds that the limitation of one year bars this action, and that, for that reason, the Circuit Court .did not err in giving to the jury the general charge, to find for the defendant, if they' believed the evidence. The question is, whether section 2589, or section 2619, subdiv. 6, controls this action.
Affirmed,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
O'Kief v. Memphis & Charleston R. R., 99 Ala. 524 (Ala. 1892).
99 Ala. 524 (O'Kief v. Memphis & Charleston R. R.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hardy v. Sawyer
352 So. 2d 1104 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1977)
C. F. Halstead Contractor, Incorporated v. Lowery
282 So. 2d 909 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1973)
Hodge v. Hodge
381 P.2d 329 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1963)
Sharrow v. . Inland Lines, Ltd.
108 N.E. 217 (New York Court of Appeals, 1915)
Rodman v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
59 L.R.A. 704 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1902)
Robinson v. Baltimore
67 P. 274 (Washington Supreme Court, 1901)
City Council of Sheffield v. Harris
112 Ala. 614 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1896)