Patterson v. Grand Lodge K. of P.

50 So. 377, 162 Ala. 430, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 425
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided June 30, 1909·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

ANDERSON, J.

Counts 1 and 2 are bad, and were subject to tbe demurrers interposed thereto.

Counts 3, 4, 5, and 6 were not subject to the demurrers, which should have been overruled. Form 12, p. 1196, of the Code of 1907. Nor can we say that amended count 6, the one upon which the case was tried, covered the other counts, or that it affirmatively appears beyond dispute that the policy described iu said sixth count was the only one ever issued to Daniel Patterson.

The judgment of the city court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Dowdell, C. J., and Simpson and Mayeield, JJ., concur.

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

Patterson v. Grand Lodge K. of P., 50 So. 377, 162 Ala. 430, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 425 (Ala. 1909).

50 So. 377 (Patterson v. Grand Lodge K. of P.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Hayes
76 So. 12 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1917)
Knights of Modern Macabees v. Gillespie
71 So. 67 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1915)
Pence v. Mutual Ben. L. Ins.
61 So. 817 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1913)