Scott v. Rogers

Supreme Court of Alabama

Scott v. Rogers

136 So. 924, 223 Ala. 704

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 11, 1931

Docket8 Div. 293.

StatusPublished

This text of 136 So. 924 (Scott v. Rogers) 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.

Bluebook

Scott v. Rogers, 136 So. 924, 223 Ala. 704 (Ala. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

GARDNER, J.

Appellant was defendant on the law side of the docket in a suit on a note, and on his motion the cause was transferred to the equity docket upon, the ground of equitable defense by way of set-off not allowable in the law action. The motion was granted, and defendant filed the present bill, to which no objection was interposed, but answer filed and issue of fact thus formulated for decision.

The evidence as to amount due on the note was in sharp conflict, and there was ample foundation for the conclusion that complainant was entitled to recover no damages on account of any alleged malicious prosecution. A discussion of the evidence would serve no useful purpose. Suffice it to say that, upon due consideration thereof, the court is of the *705 opinion the conclusion of the chancellor on the facts presented is correct, and that the decree rendered should therefore be here affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and BOULDIN and FOSTER, JJ., concur.

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

GARDNER, J.

Appellant was defendant on the law side of the docket in a suit on a note, and on his motion the cause was transferred to the equity docket upon, the ground of equitable defense by way of set-off not allowable in the law action. The motion was granted, and defendant filed the present bill, to which no objection was interposed, but answer filed and issue of fact thus formulated for decision.

The evidence as to amount due on the note was in sharp conflict, and there was ample foundation for the conclusion that complainant was entitled to recover no damages on account of any alleged malicious prosecution. A discussion of the evidence would serve no useful purpose. Suffice it to say that, upon due consideration thereof, the court is of the *705 opinion the conclusion of the chancellor on the facts presented is correct, and that the decree rendered should therefore be here affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and BOULDIN and FOSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 So. 924, 223 Ala. 704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-rogers-ala-1931.