Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Russell

Supreme Court of Alabama

Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Russell

65 So. 137, 186 Ala. 158, 1914 Ala. LEXIS 360

DecidedApril 23, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 65 So. 137 (Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Russell) 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

Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Russell, 65 So. 137, 186 Ala. 158, 1914 Ala. LEXIS 360 (Ala. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

ANDERSON, C. J. —

The only error insisted upon in brief of appellant’s counsel is as to the action of the court in sustaining the plaintiff’s demurrer to defendant’s special plea 6. Said plea 6, if not otherwise bad, was defective for failing to aver that the obstruction could have been discovered or that the injury could have been avoided by keeping a lookout, and was subject to the plaintiff’s first ground of demurrer interposed thereto.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Mayfield, Somerville, and Gardner, JJ., concur.

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

ANDERSON, C. J. —

The only error insisted upon in brief of appellant’s counsel is as to the action of the court in sustaining the plaintiff’s demurrer to defendant’s special plea 6. Said plea 6, if not otherwise bad, was defective for failing to aver that the obstruction could have been discovered or that the injury could have been avoided by keeping a lookout, and was subject to the plaintiff’s first ground of demurrer interposed thereto.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Mayfield, Somerville, and Gardner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 So. 137, 186 Ala. 158, 1914 Ala. LEXIS 360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sloss-sheffield-steel-iron-co-v-russell-ala-1914.