Toon v. Finney
74 Ala. 343
Opinion
— The present case seems to have been submitted to the chancellor, and decided by him, upon the pleadmgs and proof , the proof consisting of a very large number of depositions. These depositions have all been omitted from the record, and in their absence we are bound to presume [344]*344in favor of the correctness of the chancellor’s decree dismissing the bill. The presumption is, that the allegations of the appellant’s bill were not sustained by the proof; and the decree is accordingly affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Toon v. Finney, 74 Ala. 343 (Ala. 1883).
74 Ala. 343 (Toon v. Finney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Northwestern Rug Mfg. Co. v. Russellville Furniture & Mercantile Co.
116 So. 314 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1928)
Wilkerson v. Sorsby
94 So. 481 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1922)
McPherson v. Hood
67 So. 994 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1915)
Barton v. Charter Gas Engine Co.
45 So. 213 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1907)
Jordan v. Hardie
131 Ala. 72 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1901)
Wood v. Wood
119 Ala. 183 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1898)
Winter v. City Council
79 Ala. 481 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1885)