Smalley v. Bank of Albertville

Alabama Court of Appeals

Smalley v. Bank of Albertville

73 So. 995, 15 Ala. App. 496, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 23

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 30, 1917

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 73 So. 995 (Smalley v. Bank of Albertville) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smalley v. Bank of Albertville, 73 So. 995, 15 Ala. App. 496, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 23 (Ala. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, J.

In the complaint as originally filed, the plaintiff was styled, the “Bank of Arab, a corporation.” During the progress of the trial it was shown that there was no süch corporation as the “Bank of Arab;” that the plaintiff’s true corporate name was the Bank of Albertville; and that its branch bank at Arab was styled, the “Bank of Arab.” On this showing the court properly allowed the plaintiff to amend the complaint by substituting the word “Albertville” for “Arab.” — McDonough v. Commercial State Bank, infra, 73 South. 754. The allowance *497 of the amendment cured the errors in the previous rulings of the court in the admission of the evidence. The court properly-refused the affirmative charge requested by the defendant.

Affirmed.

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

BROWN, J.

In the complaint as originally filed, the plaintiff was styled, the “Bank of Arab, a corporation.” During the progress of the trial it was shown that there was no süch corporation as the “Bank of Arab;” that the plaintiff’s true corporate name was the Bank of Albertville; and that its branch bank at Arab was styled, the “Bank of Arab.” On this showing the court properly allowed the plaintiff to amend the complaint by substituting the word “Albertville” for “Arab.” — McDonough v. Commercial State Bank, infra, 73 South. 754. The allowance *497 of the amendment cured the errors in the previous rulings of the court in the admission of the evidence. The court properly-refused the affirmative charge requested by the defendant.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 So. 995, 15 Ala. App. 496, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smalley-v-bank-of-albertville-alactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack