Bartee v. Matthews
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the CourtSaxre, J.
The bill in question is somewhat lacking in clearness of averment, but if, considering defects of form amended, it contains equity, it should be heard, however denominated. If, on the other hand, it contains no equity, it was properly taken from the files; the method being in that ease immaterial. From the opinion filed by the judge below, it appears that the motion to strike was entertained and granted, for the reason that the litigation shown by the bill in the main cause, and the proceedings thereunder had been closed by final decree adjudicating all the rights of the parties, and that…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Planters' & Merchants' Mutual Insurance v. Selma Savings BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1879
- Bowie v. MinterSupreme Court of Alabama · 1841
- Matthews v. BarteeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1923
- Ramey v. GreenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1851
3Cited by15 opinions
- Patton v. DardenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
- Pearce v. Third Ave. Improvement Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1930
- Boyd v. GarrisonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1944
- Schneidau v. ManleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1944
- Worthington v. WorthingtonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.