Scott v. Holland
This text of 31 So. 514 (Scott v. Holland) 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.
Opinion
— Action by Holland against J. B. and W. W. 'Scott, partners, etc. Complaint in Code form for deceit in the sale of a mule by defendants to plaintiff. — Code, p. 947, Form 21. On the trial there was some evidence of a warranty on the part of defendants of the animal’s soundness and that it was unsound. But there was no evidence of false representations or deceit on the part of defendants. The action should have been on tire warranty. (Code, F. 22.) The complaint for deceit being unsupported by any evidence, the court should have given the affirmative charge requested by defendants.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
31 So. 514, 132 Ala. 389, 1902 Ala. LEXIS 71, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-holland-ala-1902.