State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Ward

133 So. 2d 383, 272 Ala. 646, 1961 Ala. LEXIS 518
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided September 28, 1961·No. 6 Div. 619·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The majority of the court concur in that part of the opinion of Justice Goodwyn, appearing below, holding that the injunction suit was not a suit pending “to enforce or test the validity” of the title. However, they do not concur in that part [647]*647dealing with the question whether the principle of estoppel is applicable to the State, and express their view on that question as follows:

Assuming, without deciding, that the principle of estoppel is applicable to the State, we are nevertheless of the opinion that the facts and circumstances of this case are not sufficient to justify application of said principle. Accordingly, the decree appealed from is due to be reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON, STAKELY and MERRILL, JJ., concur. SIMPSON and GOODWYN, JJ., dissent.

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

State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Ward, 133 So. 2d 383, 272 Ala. 646, 1961 Ala. LEXIS 518 (Ala. 1961).

133 So. 2d 383 (State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Ward) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

WEST DAUPHIN LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Callon Offshore Prod., Inc.
725 So. 2d 944 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1998)
Marsh v. Birmingham Bd. of Ed.
349 So. 2d 34 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1977)
First National Bank v. State
427 P.2d 225 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1967)
State Ex Rel. Attorney General v. Tarleton
188 So. 2d 516 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1966)