Spurlin Mercantile Co. v. Lauchheimer & Sons

48 So. 812, 159 Ala. 512, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 676
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedFebruary 11, 1909
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 48 So. 812 (Spurlin Mercantile Co. v. Lauchheimer & Sons) 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
Spurlin Mercantile Co. v. Lauchheimer & Sons, 48 So. 812, 159 Ala. 512, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 676 (Ala. 1909).

Opinion

ANDERSON, J.

It has been often held by this court that, to maintain a judgment by default against a corporation, the record or judgment entry must recite the fact that proof was made to the court that the person on whom process was served was at the time of service such an officer or agent of the defendant as by law, was authorized to receive service of process for and in behalf of the defendant. — Southern Home Co. v. Gillespie, 121 Ala. 295, 25 South. 564, and cases cited. The judgment entry discloses no such fact in the case at bar, nor does it appear elsewhere in the record. Yet the defendant is sued as a corporation.

The judgment of the city court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Dowdell, C. J., and McClellan and Mayfield, JJ., concur.

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

Related

New York Life Ins. Co. v. Mason
180 So. 775 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1938)
Ex Parte Gay
104 So. 900 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
48 So. 812, 159 Ala. 512, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spurlin-mercantile-co-v-lauchheimer-sons-ala-1909.