Pollock & Co. v. Haigler
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from Lowndes Chancery Court. Heard before Hon. W. R. Chapman. Bill by J. Pollock & Company against W. L. C. Haigler and others to remove the administration of an estate from the probate to the chancery court, and to discover and subject to complainant’s claim withheld and concealed assets. From a decree in vacation sustaining demurrers to the bill and dismissing it, complainants appeal.
1Opinion of the Court
McCLELLAN, j.(1) The decree sustaining the demurrer to the original bill as last amended and dismissing the bill was rendered in vacation; and no opportunity was preserved for the complainant to amend, if so advised. This was error to reverse the decree. — Kingsbury v. Milner, 69 Ala. 502; Code, § 3126. Other decisions to like effect are collated in the opinion of two of the justices in Blackburn v. Fitzgerald, 130 Ala. at pages 590, 591, 30 South. 568. The decision in Merritt v. Alabama Pyrites Company, 145 Ala. 252, 262, 263, 40 South. 1028, was made to turn in this connection upon the fact…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Va. & Ala. Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Hale & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1890
- Ward v. WardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1895
- Shackelford v. BankheadSupreme Court of Alabama · 1882
- Kingsbury v. MilnerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1881
- Wolfe v. UnderwoodSupreme Court of Alabama · 1892
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Whiteman v. TaberSupreme Court of Alabama · 1919
- Ezzell v. First Nat. Bank of RussellvilleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
- Moss v. WinstonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
- Wheeler & Motter Mercantile Co. v. WrightSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
- Oklahoma Farm Mortgage Co. v. HatcherSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.