Southern Railway Co. v. Rosenberg

129 Ala. 287
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedNovember 15, 1900
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 129 Ala. 287 (Southern Railway Co. v. Rosenberg) 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
Southern Railway Co. v. Rosenberg, 129 Ala. 287 (Ala. 1900).

Opinion

DOWDELL, J.

There are only two questions presented by the record. One is, the action of the court in sustaining plaintiff’s demurrer to the defendant’s plea of the statute of limitations of one year. The other is, the giving of the affirmative charge requested in writing by the plaintiff. This latter assignment of error is not insisted upon in argument. Moreover, the evidence, Avithout any conflict, made out a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff, which authorized the giving of the charge as requested.

The present action is one ex contractu, and the statute of limitations of one year presented no defense to the action.' It was well brought within six years, and consequently there was no error in sustaining the demurrer to the defendant’s plea.—A. G. S. R. R. Co. v. Eichofer, 100 Ala. 224; McDaniel v. Johnston, 110 Ala. 526; Mc[289]*289Carthy et al. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 102 Ala. 193; Holland v. So. Express Co., 114 Ala. 128.

There is no error shown by the record, and the judg-. ment of the circuit court is affirmed-

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

Related

Mott v. Jackson
55 So. 528 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1911)
Mcneill v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co.
49 So. 797 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
129 Ala. 287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-railway-co-v-rosenberg-ala-1900.