Scott v. Holland

31 So. 514, 132 Ala. 389, 1902 Ala. LEXIS 71
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided February 13, 1902·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

McCLELLAN, C. J.-

— 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

Scott v. Holland, 31 So. 514, 132 Ala. 389, 1902 Ala. LEXIS 71 (Ala. 1902).

31 So. 514 (Scott v. Holland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Boyd v. Homes of Legend, Inc.
188 F.3d 1294 (Eleventh Circuit, 1999)
Boyd v. Homes of Legend
188 F.3d 1294 (Eleventh Circuit, 1999)
R. G. Cope, Jr., Inc. v. Commissioner
1984 T.C. Memo. 476 (U.S. Tax Court, 1984)
West v. Friday, Inc.
403 So. 2d 213 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1981)
Geohagan v. General Motors Corp.
279 So. 2d 436 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1973)
St. Mary’s Oil Engine Co v. Jackson Ice & Fuel Co.
138 So. 834 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1931)
Wallace v. Crosthwait
71 So. 666 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1916)
McCoy v. Prince
66 So. 950 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1914)
Cowan v. Staggs
59 So. 153 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1912)
Millsapp v. Woolf
56 So. 22 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1911)
Davis v. Vandiver & Co.
49 So. 318 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1909)