State Ex Rel. Little v. Laurendine

Supreme Court of Alabama

State Ex Rel. Little v. Laurendine

196 So. 278, 239 Ala. 620, 1940 Ala. LEXIS 404

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedApril 4, 1940

Docket1 Div. 88.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 196 So. 278 (State Ex Rel. Little v. Laurendine) 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

State Ex Rel. Little v. Laurendine, 196 So. 278, 239 Ala. 620, 1940 Ala. LEXIS 404 (Ala. 1940).

Pincite

Opinions

*621 PER CURIAM.

The averments of the petition of Lauren-dine, as last amended, show the creation of an express trust in the Barrett property ultimately conveyed to the Peoples Bank of Mobile, in consummation of the joint adventure participated in by Laurendine on the one part and the bank through its president on the other to acquire said property, and the petitioner is entitled to participate in the profits arising therefrom after reimbursing the bank for the money advanced, with interest, and other lawful charges against said property, and therefore entitled to an accounting as prayed in said petition.

The demurrer to the petition was therefore properly overruled, and the decree of the circuit court is due to be affirmed.

Affirmed.-

All the Justices concur, except THOMAS, J., who dissents.

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

*621 PER CURIAM.

The averments of the petition of Lauren-dine, as last amended, show the creation of an express trust in the Barrett property ultimately conveyed to the Peoples Bank of Mobile, in consummation of the joint adventure participated in by Laurendine on the one part and the bank through its president on the other to acquire said property, and the petitioner is entitled to participate in the profits arising therefrom after reimbursing the bank for the money advanced, with interest, and other lawful charges against said property, and therefore entitled to an accounting as prayed in said petition.

The demurrer to the petition was therefore properly overruled, and the decree of the circuit court is due to be affirmed.

Affirmed.-

All the Justices concur, except THOMAS, J., who dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 So. 278, 239 Ala. 620, 1940 Ala. LEXIS 404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-little-v-laurendine-ala-1940.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack