Spann v. Radford

116 So. 311, 22 Ala. App. 402, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 92
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 27, 1928
Docket4 Div. 370.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 116 So. 311 (Spann v. Radford) 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
Spann v. Radford, 116 So. 311, 22 Ala. App. 402, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 92 (Ala. Ct. App. 1928).

Opinion

*403 RICE, J.

In a suit upon a contract for damages for its breach, there can be no recovery except in pursuance of its terms. Thomas v. Smoot, 2 Ala. App. 407, 56 So. 1. "Where none of the terms of the contract sued upon are given, manifestly no recovery could be had. It follows that count 3 of appellee’s complaint stated no cause of action, and the demurrers thereto should have been sustained.

Count 4 of the complaint was subject to the first, second, third, and fourth grounds of appellant’s demurrers, and the trial court erred in not so ruling. Code 1923, § 8034; Thompson v. New South Coal Co., 135 Ala. 630, 634, 34 So. 31, 62 L. R. A. 551, 93 Am. St. Rep. 49.

For the errors pointed out, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Bradley v. Bauldree
101 So. 3d 221 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 So. 311, 22 Ala. App. 402, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spann-v-radford-alactapp-1928.