Thompson v. Manufacturers' Finance Acceptance Corp.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Thompson v. Manufacturers' Finance Acceptance Corp.

150 So. 178, 227 Ala. 43, 1933 Ala. LEXIS 281

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 1, 1933

Docket6 Div. 388.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 150 So. 178 (Thompson v. Manufacturers' Finance Acceptance Corp.) 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

Thompson v. Manufacturers' Finance Acceptance Corp., 150 So. 178, 227 Ala. 43, 1933 Ala. LEXIS 281 (Ala. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

ANDERSON, Chief Justice.

This case was reversed by the Court of Appeals upon the sole ground that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the defendants’ special pleas 5 and 6 of recoupment and set-off. We fully agree with counsel for petitioner that the defense set up in these pleas was provable under the statutory suggestion that the indebtedness due upon the mortgage or conditional sale be ascertained (Torbert v. McFarland, 172 Ala. 117, 55 So. 311), and that the Court of Appeals could have well affirmed the case under the doctrine of error without injury in the absence of a bill of exceptions or some affirmative record evidence showing that the defendant was denied this right under the statutory suggestion. Wilson v. Owens Horse & Mule Co., 14 Ala. App. 467, 70 So. 956; Henderson v. T. C., I. & Ry. Co., 190 Ala. 126, 67 So. 414; Miller v. Mutual Grocery Co., 214 Ala. 62, 106 So. 396.

This court, however, will not reverse the Court of Appeals upon the doctrine of error without injury when the opinion of the Court of Appeals makes no reference to the question, nor furnishes a statement of fact which could supply a basis for a review by this court.

Writ denied.

GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ;, concur.

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

ANDERSON, Chief Justice.

This case was reversed by the Court of Appeals upon the sole ground that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the defendants’ special pleas 5 and 6 of recoupment and set-off. We fully agree with counsel for petitioner that the defense set up in these pleas was provable under the statutory suggestion that the indebtedness due upon the mortgage or conditional sale be ascertained (Torbert v. McFarland, 172 Ala. 117, 55 So. 311), and that the Court of Appeals could have well affirmed the case under the doctrine of error without injury in the absence of a bill of exceptions or some affirmative record evidence showing that the defendant was denied this right under the statutory suggestion. Wilson v. Owens Horse & Mule Co., 14 Ala. App. 467, 70 So. 956; Henderson v. T. C., I. & Ry. Co., 190 Ala. 126, 67 So. 414; Miller v. Mutual Grocery Co., 214 Ala. 62, 106 So. 396.

This court, however, will not reverse the Court of Appeals upon the doctrine of error without injury when the opinion of the Court of Appeals makes no reference to the question, nor furnishes a statement of fact which could supply a basis for a review by this court.

Writ denied.

GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ;, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 So. 178, 227 Ala. 43, 1933 Ala. LEXIS 281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-manufacturers-finance-acceptance-corp-ala-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack